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.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Yes many players, myself included did take those less than bleeding edge best options for a variety of reasons. I don't get how you treat everyone's local scene as if players only take whats good and never considering anything else.

If you don't care about the rules then why do the kits need to have special snowflake rules? I'm not against having multipart kits so you can customize the pose of your models, but I fail to see why they need lots of rules choices when you aren't going to put any thought into which one you take.

My beef with them is that its blatantly apparent GW has no intention to provide decent rules to play with the old models, meaning i'm landed with hundreds of dollars of old, painted plastic I cannot find a decent use for in a game anymore, with the exception of the most casual of games. If you want marines, and you want them to be 'good', you need Primaris. I would have preferred them being able to be added in as needed, to supplement my existing forces.

 Peregrine wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Yes many players, myself included did take those less than bleeding edge best options for a variety of reasons. I don't get how you treat everyone's local scene as if players only take whats good and never considering anything else.

If you don't care about the rules then why do the kits need to have special snowflake rules? I'm not against having multipart kits so you can customize the pose of your models, but I fail to see why they need lots of rules choices when you aren't going to put any thought into which one you take.

One cause kits have consistently had "special snow flake options" for decades and I am vehement opposed to eliminating or invalidating options, armies or models. If an option is bad it should be fixed not deleted. Two because variety is interesting, just saying count everything as a plus one mega gun is boring. I love that marines have so many combi weapons, melee options, pistol options cause, special and heavy weapon combos cause I can take such a diverse force.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
One cause kits have consistently had "special snow flake options" for decades and I am vehement opposed to eliminating or invalidating options, armies or models. If an option is bad it should be fixed not deleted. Two because variety is interesting, just saying count everything as a plus one mega gun is boring. I love that marines have so many combi weapons, melee options, pistol options cause, special and heavy weapon combos cause I can take such a diverse force.

But, again, why does it matter that the weapons have different names if you're paying so little attention to their rules and don't bother to make intelligent choices about how best to execute a strategy for winning the game? You're proposing a weird scenario where the slight mathematical differences in efficiency between various stat lines are really important and must be kept, but you also don't care about slight differences in efficiency and just pick whichever model looks cool. I can understand wanting lots of options if you're obsessed with math optimization, but if it's all about the cool models? the rules bloat, all you need is one stat line for "anti-tank weapon" and lots of diversity in how you build the model to represent it.

That sounds like a very boring game. The main problem is your actually pushing that every unit essentially needs to be unique in both rules and options. Your not wrong that for a tactical squad this edition a MM is not the best choice purely for smashing your opponent, (then again, neither is a tac squad in general, guess they along with any non top 5 army choices should be deleted and smashed to dust). The issue comes with there are units that a MM isn't a terrible option.

At this point this creates an issue with figuring out which model has which gun. I can imagine the game being super fun with my landspeeders and attack bikes having MM and then claiming that my infantry with the same weapon visually are really lascannons.

So you can try to simplify the rules and make everything some dull generic option or we can keep a wide range of weird and wacky things that have defined 40k for years. 40k has never really been a balanced game and just deleting options and removing units isn't going to fix that.

As a final thought, why do you care if GW keeps current options in the game even if they aren't great. If your playing purely to win, your essentially going to ignore 90 plus percent of what GW sells anyway so why are you so focused on killing off a ton of peoples choices and models?

HoundsofDemos wrote:
That sounds like a very boring game.

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

The main problem is your actually pushing that every unit essentially needs to be unique in both rules and options. Your not wrong that for a tactical squad this edition a MM is not the best choice purely for smashing your opponent, (then again, neither is a tac squad in general, guess they along with any non top 5 army choices should be deleted and smashed to dust).

I don't understand what you mean about units having to be unique. A tactical squad can work exactly as it does now except instead of choosing from 2-3 anti-horde weapons or 2-3 anti-tank weapons, some of them slightly more or less point efficient than the others but otherwise nearly identical in function, you just choose "anti-tank" or "anti-infantry" for your heavy weapon. Now the depth comes from how you use the tactical squad, not whether or not you successfully did the math to optimize its upgrade choices.

The issue comes with there are units that a MM isn't a terrible option.

At this point this creates an issue with figuring out which model has which gun. I can imagine the game being super fun with my landspeeders and attack bikes having MM and then claiming that my infantry with the same weapon visually are really lascannons.

But why do they need a MM? They can have the same kind of options: anti-tank land speeder, anti-horde land-speeder, etc. That's how Epic did it, units had a set anti-tank and anti-infantry firepower rating regardless of how you modeled them and nobody had any problems keeping track of it.

40k has never really been a balanced game and just deleting options and removing units isn't going to fix that.

No, simplification alone won't fix everything. But it can sure help, and it can make the rest of the job a lot easier.

Cause if I wanted to play something generic like that I'd play epic or what ever similar game that a company offers today. Generic does this against that unit to me with out options just doesn't appeal to me.

40k for me has been many thing over the years but at it's core when played between like minded people it's a great skirmish or just above that level game with a ton of options, nonsense and fun. Every now and then through in an apoc game and bring in the big models.

We seem to want something fundamentally different from a game of 40k.

I love the little moments when that level of choice made a difference. The time I took a plasma pistol on lark that ended up killing my opponents warlord or when a charge failed so hard at a key moment my guys got eating a live by over watch or back an edition when a blast scattered and did something insane. For me that's what I enjoy in 40k.

If that's why you play 40k then why are you lobbying so hard to keep minor differences between weapons that only really matter if you're doing serious math optimization to give yourself a 5% better chance of winning? I mean, how many memories do you have of how disappointed you were that your 20 point lascannon rolled a 6 for a penetrating hit, a penetrating hit that you could have had for only 15 points with a missile launcher if you'd been better at optimization? Do you obsessively take notes on these events so you can make a better lascannon vs. missile launcher choice in your next game? I get how that kind of thing is satisfying if you're a hardcore tournament player and perfecting your skills at winning games is what drives you, but I don't understand it at all when you claim to be someone who plays the game for the cool moments. That sort of approach wants a simple game, without all the rules bloat and subtle differences in point efficiency, so you can get on with actually playing the game instead of worrying about minor stat line differences.

 iGuy91 wrote:
My beef with them is that its blatantly apparent GW has no intention to provide decent rules to play with the old models, meaning i'm landed with hundreds of dollars of old, painted plastic I cannot find a decent use for in a game anymore, with the exception of the most casual of games. If you want marines, and you want them to be 'good', you need Primaris. I would have preferred them being able to be added in as needed, to supplement my existing forces.

That's not much unlike someone who bought an army of Warp Spiders during 7th. The rules for units wax and wane. Marines are not really that terrible, either. They even show signs of improving with beta-bolters. It's not like Primaris are great either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
That sounds like a very boring game.

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

That depends tremendously on the "depth" you are after. If it's depth in storytelling, atmosphere and background, lots of choices, even overlapping ones, with character, add depth to the world. Also adds more models, so depth to the miniature line. Adds more decisions for army building and possibly play, so more depth to list-building. All of which are part of the "game".

 Insectum7 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
My beef with them is that its blatantly apparent GW has no intention to provide decent rules to play with the old models, meaning i'm landed with hundreds of dollars of old, painted plastic I cannot find a decent use for in a game anymore, with the exception of the most casual of games. If you want marines, and you want them to be 'good', you need Primaris. I would have preferred them being able to be added in as needed, to supplement my existing forces.

That's not much unlike someone who bought an army of Warp Spiders during 7th. The rules for units wax and wane. Marines are not really that terrible, either. They even show signs of improving with beta-bolters. It's not like Primaris are great either.

Your right in the fact that marines aren't as bad as many make them out to be, but it gets frustrating when marines get new rules that are focused almost entirely on primaris marines while standard marines get nothing.

Vilehydra wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
My beef with them is that its blatantly apparent GW has no intention to provide decent rules to play with the old models, meaning i'm landed with hundreds of dollars of old, painted plastic I cannot find a decent use for in a game anymore, with the exception of the most casual of games. If you want marines, and you want them to be 'good', you need Primaris. I would have preferred them being able to be added in as needed, to supplement my existing forces.

That's not much unlike someone who bought an army of Warp Spiders during 7th. The rules for units wax and wane. Marines are not really that terrible, either. They even show signs of improving with beta-bolters. It's not like Primaris are great either.

Your right in the fact that marines aren't as bad as many make them out to be, but it gets frustrating when marines get new rules that are focused almost entirely on primaris marines while standard marines get nothing.

We got some sweet point drops, though. As excited as we're supposed to be about the new primaris units, from what I've heard, the costs aren't very compelling. Meanwhile Rhinos can drive around firing 8 shots at 24" now, Dreds are cheaper, Plasma Cannons are only 16 points, and Primaris can't even use the criminally costed 2 pt Storm Shields. Things are pretty good.

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

You seem to really hate GW and 40k. I'm genuinely interested to know if it's specifically 8th edition that's made you feel this way and also why you still play if you hate it that much.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

You seem to really hate GW and 40k. I'm genuinely interested to know if it's specifically 8th edition that's made you feel this way and also why you still play if you hate it that much.

Peregrine's ALWAYS been like this. People keep telling him he needs to just walk away from the game. for his health if nothing else. all this hate can't be good for him

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

You seem to really hate GW and 40k. I'm genuinely interested to know if it's specifically 8th edition that's made you feel this way and also why you still play if you hate it that much.

Peregrine's ALWAYS been like this. People keep telling him he needs to just walk away from the game. for his health if nothing else. all this hate can't be good for him

I understand that people are always going to have criticisms of the hobby (whether that be GW or 40K itself), but not why someone would join and contribute to a forum for a hobby they fundamentally don't like. I doubt most people want to come on Dakka to read how their hobby is 'a bloated mess of rules' and has 'zero depth' (any more that they want to hear that the army they enjoy playing regularly is 'unplayable' because it wouldn't win a tournament).

I have RT Marines as a second army, and feel the OP’s dissatisfaction. However, mine is more tuned to the seeming constant Codex releases. As such, I run mine with the CSM Codex. Still have Tac, Dev, Ass and HQ options, but no need to buy a Codex as often. Also let’s you add interesting Chaos units as ‘allies’.

Man I started way back in 2e, when Marines were dudes in armor carrying a gun. Over the years they just kept adding more and More and MORE bling to them all until they became walking piles of flanderized junk. I vastly prefer the new Primaris sculpts and their back to basics approach. I would like it if they had more weapon options, yes, but the aesthetics are definitely superior over the current non-Primaris imho.

 Insectum7 wrote:
That depends tremendously on the "depth" you are after. If it's depth in storytelling, atmosphere and background, lots of choices, even overlapping ones, with character, add depth to the world. Also adds more models, so depth to the miniature line.

Again, this is a lie GW has sold you: the idea that if something doesn't have explicit rules it doesn't exist. Story, atmosphere, etc, don't depend on a lascannon and a krak missile rolling slightly different dice. You can still have the exact same story if both need a 3+ on a D6. You can still have fluff about how your chapter prefers lascannons over krak missiles because they're often used on extended deployments where recharging batteries is easier than getting shipments of new missiles. If you aren't doing these things because GW hasn't given you a special rule on the datasheet that's a problem with your lack of imagination, not with simplified rules.

Adds more decisions for army building and possibly play, so more depth to list-building. All of which are part of the "game".

The problem is that they don't really add more decisions. The rules bloat adds an illusion of depth by increasing complexity to the point that a new player has to work hard to find the correct answer, but once you overcome that initial learning curve there's generally a single obvious choice with better math than the alternatives and you always take it. And so the only choice becomes "do I want to build my list based on maximizing my chances of winning", and once you answer "yes" there are no more choices to make. Simplifying the rules would leave virtually all of the depth of strategic decisions, and even enhance them by removing the clutter of math optimization in favor of deciding what you want your units to be doing.

The 2nd edition wargear book is a fantastic piece of world building, even though it describes loads of weapons with overlapping design roles. I'm sorry you dont see any value in that.

It's only a "lie" from an extremely purist game design perspective, which 40k operates far beyond.

I don't see what the fantastic world building of fluff descriptions for loads of different weapons has to do with whether those weapons wound on a 3+ or 2+ or 3+ with re-rolling 1s or whatever. Does the fluff of how two weapons work magically disappear if both of them require the same 3+ on a D6? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean about "fantastic piece of world building", and what the book really contains is a bunch of math problems demonstrating why one weapon is worth 5 points more than the other?

And it absolutely is a lie. GW has sold you the lie that their way of doing things, the way that requires the least talent and substitutes quantity for quality, is the only way to do things. And here you are justifying GW's lazy work, and even trying to claim that 40k is somehow different and operating "far beyond good game design principles" is a good thing!

Sure. Go out there and do better, popularize it, and take all of GWs market share. Be my guest.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sure. Go out there and do better, popularize it, and take all of GWs market share. Be my guest.

Ah yes, the classic "if you can't build a billion dollar game company you can't criticize GW" argument. Do you also believe that you can't leave a 1-star review for a restaurant unless you first go out and start your own restaurant that takes over their market share?

Peregrine, you don't need to make your own game, but I think that you disagree with the basic design assumptions of 40K on such a fundamental level, that discussing with you is pointless.

 Crimson wrote:
Peregrine, you don't need to make your own game, but I think that you disagree with the basic design assumptions of 40K on such a fundamental level, that discussing with you is pointless.

There are legit criticisms that people are ignoring though.

 Crimson wrote:
Peregrine, you don't need to make your own game, but I think that you disagree with the basic design assumptions of 40K on such a fundamental level, that discussing with you is pointless.

Yes, I do disagree with assumptions like "increasing word count is an important design goal" or "balance is irrelevant as long as we're selling models" or "who cares about the fluff that defines our game, the marketing department demands a new release". How you choose to take that disagreement is up to you.

 Brother Castor wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

You seem to really hate GW and 40k. I'm genuinely interested to know if it's specifically 8th edition that's made you feel this way and also why you still play if you hate it that much.

Peregrine's ALWAYS been like this. People keep telling him he needs to just walk away from the game. for his health if nothing else. all this hate can't be good for him

I understand that people are always going to have criticisms of the hobby (whether that be GW or 40K itself), but not why someone would join and contribute to a forum for a hobby they fundamentally don't like. I doubt most people want to come on Dakka to read how their hobby is 'a bloated mess of rules' and has 'zero depth' (any more that they want to hear that the army they enjoy playing regularly is 'unplayable' because it wouldn't win a tournament).

This is a disgrace of a mentality. It's not offensive in anyway to dislike change. It's called personal tastes. I'm getting really tired of your censorship happy generation

Who taught you it's okay to belittle people that don't follow the group? Seriously it disturbs the hell out of me you think that proper etiquette to follow without question. Or not allowing people to have taste that's not the norm.

Our society is built on the ability to speak freely. And this hobby weather you like it or not has fans that want to inspire change and are allowed a voice to do so.

I don't know what kind of upbringing you have but this isn't right

Sterling191 wrote:The number of folks who dont seem to know that primaris torsos and legs are nearly fully compatible with baby-marine weapon, pauldron, and head bits is endlessly amusing.

Can I ask how well the torsos of old marines, or specifically Horus Heresy Marine models which I hear are slightly upscale, fit on the legs of say intercessors? Do they look like they have massive legs or does it work smoothly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Allfather wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

You seem to really hate GW and 40k. I'm genuinely interested to know if it's specifically 8th edition that's made you feel this way and also why you still play if you hate it that much.

Peregrine's ALWAYS been like this. People keep telling him he needs to just walk away from the game. for his health if nothing else. all this hate can't be good for him

I understand that people are always going to have criticisms of the hobby (whether that be GW or 40K itself), but not why someone would join and contribute to a forum for a hobby they fundamentally don't like. I doubt most people want to come on Dakka to read how their hobby is 'a bloated mess of rules' and has 'zero depth' (any more that they want to hear that the army they enjoy playing regularly is 'unplayable' because it wouldn't win a tournament).

This is a disgrace of a mentality. It's not offensive in anyway to dislike change. It's called personal tastes. I'm getting really tired of your censorship happy generation

Who taught you it's okay to belittle people that don't follow the group? Seriously it disturbs the hell out of me you think that proper etiquette to follow without question. Or not allowing people to have taste that's not the norm.

Our society is built on the ability to speak freely. And this hobby weather you like it or not has fans that want to inspire change and are allowed a voice to do so.

I don't know what kind of upbringing you have but this isn't right

Here's a little to Peregrine in his first month on this website, declaring how incompetent and lazy GW are at writing tabletop rules.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/474310.page#4735694

There is no "dislike of change", Peregrine simply hates 40k. He has spent 7 years on here restating and reinforcing that whenever possible. This isn't me hating on him with this post either, I'm simply posting some facts to get you up to speed because the situation is not as you interpret it.

The Allfather wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

You seem to really hate GW and 40k. I'm genuinely interested to know if it's specifically 8th edition that's made you feel this way and also why you still play if you hate it that much.

Peregrine's ALWAYS been like this. People keep telling him he needs to just walk away from the game. for his health if nothing else. all this hate can't be good for him

I understand that people are always going to have criticisms of the hobby (whether that be GW or 40K itself), but not why someone would join and contribute to a forum for a hobby they fundamentally don't like. I doubt most people want to come on Dakka to read how their hobby is 'a bloated mess of rules' and has 'zero depth' (any more that they want to hear that the army they enjoy playing regularly is 'unplayable' because it wouldn't win a tournament).

This is a disgrace of a mentality. It's not offensive in anyway to dislike change. It's called personal tastes. I'm getting really tired of your censorship happy generation

Who taught you it's okay to belittle people that don't follow the group? Seriously it disturbs the hell out of me you think that proper etiquette to follow without question. Or not allowing people to have taste that's not the norm.

Our society is built on the ability to speak freely. And this hobby weather you like it or not has fans that want to inspire change and are allowed a voice to do so.

I don't know what kind of upbringing you have but this isn't right

Considering that the question was specifically whether it was 8th edition changes that were disliked so much, and that it was accepted that there would always be criticisms of GW and 40K that seems a rather over the top response. Still, if I caused any offense then I apologise.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

The Allfather wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a lie GW has sold you on. Genuine gameplay depth does not come from having a bloated mess of rules where you have to calculate which weapon has 5% more point efficiency than the alternative, it comes from having a good system for actions and reactions, scenario design, etc. But it's easier for GW to keep the same zero-depth IGOUGO core mechanics and distract you with tons of rules to learn.

You seem to really hate GW and 40k. I'm genuinely interested to know if it's specifically 8th edition that's made you feel this way and also why you still play if you hate it that much.

Peregrine's ALWAYS been like this. People keep telling him he needs to just walk away from the game. for his health if nothing else. all this hate can't be good for him

I understand that people are always going to have criticisms of the hobby (whether that be GW or 40K itself), but not why someone would join and contribute to a forum for a hobby they fundamentally don't like. I doubt most people want to come on Dakka to read how their hobby is 'a bloated mess of rules' and has 'zero depth' (any more that they want to hear that the army they enjoy playing regularly is 'unplayable' because it wouldn't win a tournament).

This is a disgrace of a mentality. It's not offensive in anyway to dislike change. It's called personal tastes. I'm getting really tired of your censorship happy generation

Who taught you it's okay to belittle people that don't follow the group? Seriously it disturbs the hell out of me you think that proper etiquette to follow without question. Or not allowing people to have taste that's not the norm.

Our society is built on the ability to speak freely. And this hobby weather you like it or not has fans that want to inspire change and are allowed a voice to do so.

I don't know what kind of upbringing you have but this isn't right

Here's a little to Peregrine in his first month on this website, declaring how incompetent and lazy GW are at writing tabletop rules.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/474310.page#4735694

There is no "dislike of change", Peregrine simply hates 40k. He has spent 7 years on here restating and reinforcing that whenever possible. This isn't me hating on him with this post either, I'm simply posting some facts to get you up to speed because the situation is not as you interpret it.

Considering that the question was specifically whether it was 8th edition changes that were disliked so much, and that it was accepted that there would always be criticisms of GW and 40K that seems a rather over the top response. Still, if I caused any offense then I apologise.

Yeah. I'm guessing you meant to quote the guy who quoted you, because to be clear it was him I was disagreeing with

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
Considering that the question was specifically whether it was 8th edition changes that were disliked so much, and that it was accepted that there would always be criticisms of GW and 40K that seems a rather over the top response. Still, if I caused any offense then I apologise.

Yeah. I'm guessing you meant to quote the guy who quoted you, because to be clear it was him I was disagreeing with

Yep, sorry, post edited. In case it wasn't obvious, it was the bit about being a disgrace, part of a censorship-happy generation and having my upbringing questioned that I thought was a bit over the top

The Allfather wrote:



This is a disgrace of a mentality. It's not offensive in anyway to dislike change. It's called personal tastes. I'm getting really tired of your censorship happy generation

Who taught you it's okay to belittle people that don't follow the group? Seriously it disturbs the hell out of me you think that proper etiquette to follow without question. Or not allowing people to have taste that's not the norm.

Our society is built on the ability to speak freely. And this hobby weather you like it or not has fans that want to inspire change and are allowed a voice to do so.

I don't know what kind of upbringing you have but this isn't right

Freedom of speach doesn't mean freedom to say what you want without being disagreed with dude. Peregrine does nothing but complain about 40k, and has done nothing but complain about it. I've nothing against him saying this stuff, I'm simply telling him that if he dislikes 40k this much he should proably find a new hobby. this is hardly canceling his freedom of speach. No one has called on the admins to ban him for what he's said for example