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.

Rules are fine and games can be played without pre-arranged conditions beyond what mission types/matched or narrative format.

Not broken. Not balanced as well as it could be.

 Lance845 wrote:

... ...The game is broken. It does have massive problems. And the rules writing and design of 40k has been "lack luster" at best for editions. 8th might be miles better than 7th but that is a exceedingly low bar. Better than complete garbage is still not good.

Haven't said otherwise.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
How entitled and shrieking the community is.

Y'all are just awful.

having spend easily upwards of £30,000 on GW stuff since I started.... yep I am entitled for wanting a superior product.... reaaaaal entitled, or, and this is the real problem, we are just expressing our frustrations for a setting we all enjoy and purging once and a while is healthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the vocabulary police are on the job now.

just pointing out that he is being far too picky, do you not agree.

I spent more than that on a car. I guess I'm entitled to ask for it to be faster, more economical and more spacious?

What was your budget for red herrings last year then?

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

I'd argue most of the comments so far in this thread have been more helpful and enlightening than yours.

Coolbeans. It wasn't meant to be either helpful, or enlightening. It was meant to express dis-satisfaction with the same tired old voices making the same tired old argument and injecting their own, tired subjective criteria into a debate as if anyone gives a flying [Expletive Deleted] at a rolling doughnut about their ridiculously entitled opinions. But, for sure, you can defeat an accusation of entitlement by doubling down on it and pointing out that in fact, yes, you spent some money so you are owed. That is not the textbook definition of entitlement, or anything.

People aren't necessarily saying they're owed anything. Expressing dissatisfaction is not the same as demanding compensation from GW. If you define entitlement as paying customers complaining about stuff then you've departed so far from the real definition of the word there's not much point debating it.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Spending £30k on something you consider a sub-par product does in fact speak volumes, but not about GW.

Unless that money was spent at a time when you didn't consider the game to be sub-par. I have no sympathy with someone piling loads of money into the game now, then complaining about it. I do have sympathy with people who have invested time and money into a game that they feel could be better, and once was. I think a lot of the frustrations people have with the game right now stem from the belief that the game isn't that far from being very good, but several mis-steps from GW have taken it a long way from that.

Oh, I'll add the character rules to this.

I don't mind the idea in principle, but it really shouldn't be based on Wounds as that's probably the most arbitrary and unrepresentative quality of any given model.

IMO it should be based on type:
- INFANTRY characters can be hidden by models of any size.
- BIKER characters can be hidden by any models except INFANTRY
- VEHICLE characters can only be hidden by VEHICLE models
- MONSTER characters can only be hidden by MONSTER models.
- TITANIC characters (if any exist) can never be hidden
(If a model has more than one of the above, use the one lowest on this list.)

Personally, I don't think MONSTER or VEHICLE characters should be able to hide at all but if they really have to be hide-able, I'd use the above.

Wayniac wrote:

4) True Line of Sight. It's already been mentioned but it is absolutely stupid that if your model can see a tiny portion of an enemy model through a gap in a building/under the tread of a tank, etc. you can shoot at them with no penalty as though they were standing out in the open. It's an extremely lazy way to handle line of sight.

This is more of an aside, but there's something really weird about the way 40k and AoS handle LoS and character targeting.

AoS deals almost entirely with primitive weapons (bows, crossbows etc.), and yet they can target any character with only a minute hit penalty. What's more, in spite of the fact that they can be freely targeted, characters in AoS tend to have pitiful saves and no Invulnerable saves or any (meaningful) FNP saves.

Meanwhile, 40k, which deals with all manner of advanced weapons and targeting systems makes it almost impossible to shoot characters. However, in spite of this almost total protection from shooting, 40k characters are still armoured to the teeth with all manner of armour, invulnerable, and FNP saves, along with many other defences.

Really, I'm just talking about the kind of person who doesn't play a Faction, but who wants that Faction to be entirely reworked solely 'cause they don't like it. Or a person who wants another entire Faction deleted, solely 'cause they don't like that Faction.

You know, the self-appointed guardians of the hobby, who are in fact just massively entitled, self-important Normans.

Primary problems with 40k are fundamental design philosophy questions more so than any numbers or specific mechanics or anything else. To wit:

1) Turning point theory. Every game has to be a massive turning point on a galactic scale, which means every psychic power has to be this grandiose massive epic super-thing on which the game pivots, every army has to be loaded down with the most epic extreme super-badasses in the galaxy, every game has to have a Primarch in it, etc. Most of the scale creep/balance issues with the game result from this philosophy and need to be addressed by taking a chainsaw to it; if smaller and more subtle things existed the game would be less silly. Consider by comparison Warmachine (on scale): people in Warmachine don't have potentially spammable spells that say "move this unit again", they have potentially spammable spells that say "this unit moves 2" further". Because they're working with smaller and more subtle effects than GW's grandiose sledgehammer of superpowers they can be more fine-tuned and more balanced.

2) Scale asymmetry. Consider for the moment a Guard army; they're spending 4pts/model on their basic line units, their heavy-hitting armoured tanks might be 200pts if kitted out heavily. Consider for comparison a Knights army; their cheapest units are ~180pts/model and their heavy hitters are around 700pts. The issue of expecting two armies with such wild disparities in model count to go head to head requires GW to make all weapons in the game too generalist (see: shooting Knights with pulse rifle gunlines), so as to avoid cases like fighting Knights in 7e where anything short of S6 just didn't do anything. As a result everything is sitting on the same linear scale of durability/damage output, which means any mistake gets to ripple out and affect just about everything (ex. the need for anti-Knight weapons makes normal-size vehicles without an Invulnerable save pointless unless they're incredibly inexpensive).

3) Sacred-cow design. 40k has discrete turns rather than alternating activations, five phases of play, and requires 3-4 rolls to kill anything because that's how it's always worked, not because it works any better. Consider as a counterexample Bolt Action/Gates of Antares (Rick Priestly (GW founding designer)'s work with his new company); it has randomized alternating activations, turns are a single phase, attacks are two dice (to-hit/to-wound), armies are heavily constrained (one tank per lieutenant/two infantry in Bolt Action) to avoid spam, and the damage mechanics require guns to specialize and encourage you to use a variety of units rather than finding the most efficient choice and spamming it.
-3A) Refusal to backpedal. Introducing Knights as a standalone Codex, the bizarre reroll-before-modifiers bug, act-again effects, and penalty stacking in this edition, superheavies the last two editions, Destroyer weapons and Invisibility in 7th, Jink and Heldrakes in 6th, the glance table and psybolt ammo in 5th, GW has a long history of making terrible design decisions and then standing by them and trying to patch around them when it'd be much, much easier and produce a much simpler, cleaner, and better game to admit that they f***ed up and backpedal.

4) Inadequate testing and refusal to backpedal. GW doesn't playtest anything enough, and in previous editions instead of iterating on their designs to fix bugs they've finished all the army books and released a new edition to completely upend the apple cart. The fact that the game is so unstable and that the models you bought that were good might be unplayable in six months is a serious problem for anyone who wants to play the game; dropping $500 on an army only to find GW has nerfed it into dust and you need to buy a new one before you've even finished painting it isn't good for anyone (you get frustrated and go away talking gak about GW, GW loses a customer).

Very little about the core rules to 40k right now is inherently wrong, and you could honestly fix a lot of this within the existing framework of 8e, but what you have to recognize is that GW's design issues stem from attitude problems far more than they do specific design decisions. It isn't any individual decision they make that hurts the game, if it were it'd be easy for them to fix because we'd all be complaining about the same thing and it'd get through to them eventually. It's the attitude problems that lead to a feedback loop of small mistakes feeding off each other and producing a kludgy mess.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
Oh, I'll add the character rules to this.

I don't mind the idea in principle, but it really shouldn't be based on Wounds as that's probably the most arbitrary and unrepresentative quality of any given model.

IMO it should be based on type:
- INFANTRY characters can be hidden by models of any size.
- BIKER characters can be hidden by any models except INFANTRY
- VEHICLE characters can only be hidden by VEHICLE models
- MONSTER characters can only be hidden by MONSTER models.
- TITANIC characters (if any exist) can never be hidden
(If a model has more than one of the above, use the one lowest on this list.)

Personally, I don't think MONSTER or VEHICLE characters should be able to hide at all but if they really have to be hide-able, I'd use the above.

This is more of an aside, but there's something really weird about the way 40k and AoS handle LoS and character targeting.

AoS deals almost entirely with primitive weapons (bows, crossbows etc.), and yet they can target any character with only a minute hit penalty. What's more, in spite of the fact that they can be freely targeted, characters in AoS tend to have pitiful saves and no Invulnerable saves or any (meaningful) FNP saves.

Meanwhile, 40k, which deals with all manner of advanced weapons and targeting systems makes it almost impossible to shoot characters. However, in spite of this almost total protection from shooting, 40k characters are still armoured to the teeth with all manner of armour, invulnerable, and FNP saves, along with many other defences.

The character rules are certainly very clunky. There's a bit too much weirdness, where things like a Librarian Dreadnought can hide an inch behind a functionally identical regular Dread and be completely untargetable. Something based on unit type would be preferable. I've sometimes toyed with the idea of trying a game where characters are freely targetable (maybe with a -1 to hit or something) if you have LoS to them and seeing how that plays out. It would obviously make characters much, much more likely to die, but is that such a bad thing? Seems like that might force some different decisions in army building. At the moment characters enable extra Detachments and often act as huge force multipliers. If you couldn't rely on their continued presence that might make for a more interesting game.

While not the most broken, my biggest concern is with how long games seem to take now.

Part of it is everyone wants a 2k game, but even at 1850 games feel a lot longer now.

It's nearly impossible to get a game in after work these days.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Really, I'm just talking about the kind of person who doesn't play a Faction, but who wants that Faction to be entirely reworked solely 'cause they don't like it. Or a person who wants another entire Faction deleted, solely 'cause they don't like that Faction.

You know, the self-appointed guardians of the hobby, who are in fact just massively entitled, self-important Normans.

Broken clocks. They may be annoying but they're not usually entirely wrong; you don't have to play a faction to understand that there are issues with how GW"s written them. Consider the Tau. Aesthetic or tonal considerations aside by defining the faction as "the best at shooting" GW has produced a faction that only really bothers to participate in one phase of play, which ends up meaning in the vast majority of games they either steamroll or get steamrolled, there isn't really a middle ground between the Tau player being the punching bag that doesn't really get to do anything and their opponent being the punching bag that doesn't really get to do anything, though the ratios vary depending on matchup and edition. And if you break up and analyze most "Tau OP please nerf" arguments on the Internet that's what they're complaining about. (Unless they're complaining about aesthetic or tone, those bits can safely be ignored.)

(In the interests of full disclosure I have attempted a Tau army in the past (both in 7th and in 8th), didn't enjoy it, and ended up selling them off.)

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The most broken?

The online community.

Indeed - It's telling that we've mostly moved past talking about broken units and now people just talk about structural items that can be tweaked. And yet we're still met with over the top statements about how it's an "exceptionally bad game" and sometimes people who don't even play it.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
Oh, I'll add the character rules to this.

I don't mind the idea in principle, but it really shouldn't be based on Wounds as that's probably the most arbitrary and unrepresentative quality of any given model.

IMO it should be based on type:
- INFANTRY characters can be hidden by models of any size.
- BIKER characters can be hidden by any models except INFANTRY
- VEHICLE characters can only be hidden by VEHICLE models
- MONSTER characters can only be hidden by MONSTER models.
- TITANIC characters (if any exist) can never be hidden
(If a model has more than one of the above, use the one lowest on this list.)

Well that’s kind of arbitrary. You’re saying Gulliman can be seen from behind a Repulsor Dread?

You’re saying a librarian on a bike cant be lost behind a squad of 10 Intercessors? 10 Aggressors? You realize most men on a bike are shorter than when they’re standing?

Breton wrote:

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
Oh, I'll add the character rules to this.

I don't mind the idea in principle, but it really shouldn't be based on Wounds as that's probably the most arbitrary and unrepresentative quality of any given model.

IMO it should be based on type:
- INFANTRY characters can be hidden by models of any size.
- BIKER characters can be hidden by any models except INFANTRY
- VEHICLE characters can only be hidden by VEHICLE models
- MONSTER characters can only be hidden by MONSTER models.
- TITANIC characters (if any exist) can never be hidden
(If a model has more than one of the above, use the one lowest on this list.)

Well that’s kind of arbitrary. You’re saying Gulliman can be seen from behind a Repulsor Dread?

You’re saying a librarian on a bike cant be lost behind a squad of 10 Intercessors? 10 Aggressors? You realize most men on a bike are shorter than when they’re standing?

I've advocated for a Size stat, where you can only hide behind someone up to one Size point larger than you.

Obviously there's a breakpoint where you can't hide anymore (no hiding Character Knights, even behind other Knights) but I feel like it'd be a good solution.

Thread about it here.

I'd like to see a change from IGOUGO to Alternating Activation. Anyone who has played Titanicus will recognised how much it changes the gameplay and makes you think more tactically.

To be more specific however, I think certain combinations just need to be removed. Certain units/rules seem ok by themselves, but combining them just makes it monstrous. 4x Chaincannon Havocs with VotLW and Endless Cacophany are suddenly spitting out 64 Heavy Bolter shots that are wounding Knights on 4+. By themselves, these rules/units aren't too broken, but combined they're just terrible. Similar example would be Destroyers re-rolling all hits and wounds.

Going back to Havocs, they seem to be a good example of Codex Creep. I didn't think it was too much of an issue at first but it's when GW just start adding random additions for no apparent reason is what I don't get. Havocs get the Chaincannons, which are good and kinda make up for the lack of Assault Cannons, but suddenly they're T5 (why?) and can ignore moving penalties, again for no reason.

Mortal Wound spam should go. It's an interesting mechanic but I get the impression that GW just use MW when they're too lazy to actually think of rules. Look at the C'tan powers for example; back in 7th they were all unique and had some pretty interesting effects; now they're all a variation of "pick a unit and roll (x) dice, for each roll of (y) inflict a Mortal Wound", it's boring and tedious. I'm not saying get rid of the mechanic alltogether, but tone it down a hell of a lot.

True Line of Sight needs to come back; what was wrong with the 7th Edition version? They even reintroduced it in Cities of Death in the latest CA. Why couldn't they have made it a rule from the start? "My unit can see one of your bayonets", so therefore not only can he die, but the whole unit can be wiped!"

Character Targeting: I get the theme of this was that it's hard to pick out one guy amongst squads of units, but when you can't shoot Guilliman 12" away because there's a Land Raider 11" behind you, it's just ridiculous.

warpedpig wrote:What’s the worst stuff that needs fixing. Cover. Armor saves. Charging. Units. Etc. I’m gonna make an improved rule set and post it later

Good luck with that bud. Keep in mind that GW isn't focused on optimal game design anymore, only sustained sales growth, so the underlying mechanics you're working with are largely sub-optimal, made worse by the fact that different people want different things out of their table top war games. 40K started as a sort of skirmish based RPG, that then involved into a skirmish game with overly bloated rules (H2H was a nightmare in 2nd ed). In 3rd they opted to throw the baby out with the bath water and since then they've really struggled to figure out just what kind of game 40K is supposed to be, which is why you know have Imperial Knights, Gargants and atmospheric flghter aircraft occupying the same battlefield as everything from Primarchs and Custodes to Gretchin/grots and Eldar Guardians. The whole thing is a giant mess that they're stuck with, because they can't just flip a switch and invalidated all the large, expensive items that their whales have brought over the years, not unless they can offer them some sort of alternative game mode.

Tack onto this the problem with trying to please a large player base in general. Take the bashing of IGOUGO for example, that has become the norm these days, despite the fact that it has worked in all manner of previous systems - both GW and otherwise - for a long time. Indeed it is a staple of many game types, not just table top games. One of the reasons IGOUGO draws so much hate now is because of how deadly the first round of a typical 40K game has become now. Going first is a massive advantage. In days of yore, when people used to lay out their terrain in a much more sensible and interesting manner than seems typical of the current ITC-esque format, and back when cover and long range conferred penalties on the shooter, winning the first turn was less important. The game was centred more around the gradual advance to contact, requiring skillful positioning and forward planning to create advantageous angles and no-go zones for the enemy. The handful of what we would now call strategems were mainly broken even back then and frequently discarded by people that wanted to have a serious yet fun tactical war game with a friend.

While the D6 is often raised as a point of contention, that often misunderstands its use. It's not supposed to be this brilliantly versatile game device, it's simply intended to add a degree of randomness that a real battle would possess, such that you avoid the situation where moving a squad of assault marines into a small mob of boyz doesn't automatically result in one side or the other winning. Adding in additonal layers of operation (hit/wound/save) allows the expanding of the difference between different units. Oddly (given that people often complaing about units being too much the same) a lot of the problems with 40K and other table tops has historically come from the oppostie end; having too many special snowflakes with their super special equipment and magic items. Couple this with the occassional horrendous game design choice, such as wizards in old WHFB that could effectively move and then shoot at multiple targets (in the form of multiple spells), combined with frequently atrocious army balance (internal and external) and you have quite the mess to unpick.

If you want to create a decent rule set your best bet is to probably start from scratch. It's a project of significant complexity which will require many, many hours of work to get right. If you just try and half arse it and make a few tweaks you wont really change much. Fair play to you if you're still thinking of going for it but I think you're onto a hiding to nothing bud. The most likely outcome is that you'll pour your heart and soul into it, get bored/frustrated, rush the last bits, and for all your work you'll probably please all of about three people.

Ishagu wrote:I spent more than that on a car. I guess I'm entitled to ask for it to be faster, more economical and more spacious?

Not your car, but the next iteration of your car maybe. The automotive world is highly competitve and car manufacturers spend enormous sums on trying to figure out what it is their customers want and where the future trends of their industry are headed, so as to produce products that match as closely as possible what it is that people want from their cars. The history of car manufacturing is littered with the corporate corpses (some returned as Zombies) of companies that failed to listen to what their current and potential customers wanted.

 Valkyrie wrote:
True Line of Sight needs to come back; what was wrong with the 7th Edition version? They even reintroduced it in Cities of Death in the latest CA. Why couldn't they have made it a rule from the start? "My unit can see one of your bayonets", so therefore not only can he die, but the whole unit can be wiped!"

Oh no, my two Rhinos have accidentally made it so the only models I can see are your Special and Heavy Weapon guys. Such a shame!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
True Line of Sight needs to come back; what was wrong with the 7th Edition version? They even reintroduced it in Cities of Death in the latest CA. Why couldn't they have made it a rule from the start? "My unit can see one of your bayonets", so therefore not only can he die, but the whole unit can be wiped!"

Oh no, my two Rhinos have accidentally made it so the only models I can see are your Special and Heavy Weapon guys. Such a shame!

Conversely,
"Oh no, two Warp Spider guys are hiding behind that building 12" away. I guess I can't see the *five HQs* on the objective in the open 20" away. I guess my Lascannon-spam gunline can't see anyone!"

Bharring wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
True Line of Sight needs to come back; what was wrong with the 7th Edition version? They even reintroduced it in Cities of Death in the latest CA. Why couldn't they have made it a rule from the start? "My unit can see one of your bayonets", so therefore not only can he die, but the whole unit can be wiped!"

Oh no, my two Rhinos have accidentally made it so the only models I can see are your Special and Heavy Weapon guys. Such a shame!

Conversely,
"Oh no, two Warp Spider guys are hiding behind that building 12" away. I guess I can't see the *five HQs* on the objective in the open 20" away. I guess my Lascannon-spam gunline can't see anyone!"

Yes, both are stupid. What's your point? I never said the current rules were flawless.

That none of the options on the table are perfect. Rhino Sniping can certainly be silly, but the Anti-Rhino Sniping rules provide similarly silly scenarios.

 Ishagu wrote:
Rules are fine and games can be played without pre-arranged conditions beyond what mission types/matched or narrative format.

Not broken. Not balanced as well as it could be.

This isn't true and hasn't been for true at any point I've played 40k. While I usually rag on people for being to negative about the game, you almost come off as a GW FB poster. Even well designed codexes half at least a third if not more units being borderline useless and so many unit options have no place unless your opponent is willing to also tone down their list.

So, how to say this politely?

Ishagu has a long, long, long, long history of always, always, always, always erring on a favourable view of any action GW takes.

Which is fine, 'cause, you know, that's just, like, their opinion.

I think the worst(i.e."broken") part of 40k has to be the people ACTIVELY trying to break the game in their favor.

The player interaction with those specific individuals is a horrid experience and should be avoided once known of.

If that's how you want to play then maybe you should practice(cuz that's all you use other non-comp players for) against those worthy of you masterful skills and not be wasted on relaxed, laid back types.

This is not directed at any one in particular, but nearly every local group has/had players who treat others like dirt and only care about their enjoyment and total douche`ness.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The most broken?

The online community.

Indeed - It's telling that we've mostly moved past talking about broken units and now people just talk about structural items that can be tweaked. And yet we're still met with over the top statements about how it's an "exceptionally bad game" and sometimes people who don't even play it.

Well people don't want to lose their Dakka street cred. Even a mildly positive statement about 40k can get you denounced as a white knight fanboi. Then all that hard work behind their keyboards goes down the drain.

Breton wrote:

Well that’s kind of arbitrary. You’re saying Gulliman can be seen from behind a Repulsor Dread?

I mean, given that you could park a locomotive between that thing's legs, yes.

Breton wrote:

You’re saying a librarian on a bike cant be lost behind a squad of 10 Intercessors? 10 Aggressors? You realize most men on a bike are shorter than when they’re standing?

If the targeting rules worked like they did in Warmachine - where you have to be fully obscured behind another model's base - I'd agree with you.

However, what you're asking for here is for us to accept that there's no visual difference between a Librarian on a bike and a squad of Intercessors (so long as the Librarian is 1mm further back). Same goes for Guilliman and the Repulsor Dread. Apparently if you stand them side by side Guilliman just disappears into the background.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I think the worst(i.e."broken") part of 40k has to be the people ACTIVELY trying to break the game in their favor.

If the game was written well it wouldn't be able to be actively broken. Following the rules is not "breaking the game".

Something that would help a lot with the alpha strike turn one problem would be the caste/class system. Overloading your army with heavy weapons gives you big alpha strike but if heavy weapons had a blanket -2 to hit against light infantry it would force a more balanced approach. Removing overpowered strategems and auras and refills as well. HQ should just be skilled warriors with some special fighting ability but not auras that generate Death Stars. With multiple rerolls and bull

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The most broken?

The online community.

Indeed - It's telling that we've mostly moved past talking about broken units and now people just talk about structural items that can be tweaked. And yet we're still met with over the top statements about how it's an "exceptionally bad game" and sometimes people who don't even play it.

Well people don't want to lose their Dakka street cred. Even a mildly positive statement about 40k can get you denounced as a white knight fanboi. Then all that hard work behind their keyboards goes down the drain.

This is so so true it hurts. There hasn't been a single release in the last 3 years that hasn't been denounced as usless/broken/having terrible rules. Yet everywhere I look there are more people playing 40k with more diverse list than I had seen in the years beforehand.

A cursory look on dakka and you would presume that nobody is enjoying the game anywhere.

Stacking modifiers are problematic. That's probably the only core rules change I'd make.

 small_gods wrote:
This is so so true it hurts. There hasn't been a single release in the last 3 years that hasn't been denounced as usless/broken/having terrible rules. Yet everywhere I look there are more people playing 40k with more diverse list than I had seen in the years beforehand.

A cursory look on dakka and you would presume that nobody is enjoying the game anywhere.

Enjoyment is not the same as quality. Anyone who's watched The Room can attest to that.

 small_gods wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The most broken?

The online community.

Indeed - It's telling that we've mostly moved past talking about broken units and now people just talk about structural items that can be tweaked. And yet we're still met with over the top statements about how it's an "exceptionally bad game" and sometimes people who don't even play it.

Well people don't want to lose their Dakka street cred. Even a mildly positive statement about 40k can get you denounced as a white knight fanboi. Then all that hard work behind their keyboards goes down the drain.

This is so so true it hurts. There hasn't been a single release in the last 3 years that hasn't been denounced as usless/broken/having terrible rules. Yet everywhere I look there are more people playing 40k with more diverse list than I had seen in the years beforehand.

A cursory look on dakka and you would presume that nobody is enjoying the game anywhere.

Lots of people like bad things. Its not like michael bay transformers movies dont make billions of dollars. Just because people enjoy bad things doesnt mean they are not bad.