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.

 Grimtuff wrote:
"bUt An AbRhAmS iS SuPeRiOr To A lEmAn RuSs!!!!"

Yes, that's the point. One day people will understand that these "backwards" and regressive things within 40k are a feature and not a bug.

They made much more sense back when the game was a farcical dark parody of sci-fi/fantasy tropes they make much less sense now that it's all serious grimdark with no self-awareness or ability to poke fun out how dumb the setting is.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
40k and realism don't live in the same universe.

And when you hit someone so hard their spine turns to powder, why waste the ammo? That's just a waste of limited resources. Besides, even if the chainsword clogs it's a heavy, and spiked, metal stick.

If you're hitting them so hard their spines turn to powder, your explosive-filled harder-than-diamond tipped ammo should have killed them before they got to you. It's like Battletech and its attempts to explain why a walker makes more sense than a tank in that it fails even basic tests of logic and makes the setting something you have to turn your brain off to enjoy.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The mile long laser doesn't work when there are rocks and buildings in the way, thus CC. You can easily make a table that favors CC units over shooting. Most tables I see tend not to, but that doesn't mean you should remove the option.

Do you know what CC looks like on the modern battlefield? It looks like well-drilled soldiers putting rounds towards their target with a rifle. Bayonet drills are being phased out of most military training and hand-to-hand combat involves putting a person into a position where you or an ally can put a bullet into them.

A guardsman with a pointy bit of metal is way less of a threat than the high energy laser coming out of the end of his lasgun.

Maybe things changed since I went through basic in 2004, but bayonet drills were still used as a means to encourage aggression in the face of an enemy. To help push it further if we could stab the dummy hard enough to break the knife we could get a chance to call home if we wanted.

LOL has no one seen Starship Troopers? And again Don''t bring real world into a game. Want to say melee isn't real enough, fine I'll bite, All SM are not real, so remove them from the game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
"bUt An AbRhAmS iS SuPeRiOr To A lEmAn RuSs!!!!"

Yes, that's the point. One day people will understand that these "backwards" and regressive things within 40k are a feature and not a bug.

They made much more sense back when the game was a farcical dark parody of sci-fi/fantasy tropes they make much less sense now that it's all serious grimdark with no self-awareness or ability to poke fun out how dumb the setting is.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
40k and realism don't live in the same universe.

And when you hit someone so hard their spine turns to powder, why waste the ammo? That's just a waste of limited resources. Besides, even if the chainsword clogs it's a heavy, and spiked, metal stick.

If you're hitting them so hard their spines turn to powder, your explosive-filled harder-than-diamond tipped ammo should have killed them before they got to you. It's like Battletech and its attempts to explain why a walker makes more sense than a tank in that it fails even basic tests of logic and makes the setting something you have to turn your brain off to enjoy.

We're talking about a setting where a hand full of Marines are shown killing dozens, if not hundreds of foes in a campaign. Not even the Heavy Bolter Marine with the ammo canister backpack has enough ammo for that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Maybe things changed since I went through basic in 2004, but bayonet drills were still used as a means to encourage aggression in the face of an enemy. To help push it further if we could stab the dummy hard enough to break the knife we could get a chance to call home if we wanted.

That was 15 years ago man. Things change.

A chainsaw used as a weapon will clog.

A chainsword is designed to be a weapon and will not clog.

Also, that is only one of the many examples of melee weapons in the 40k universe. A choppa hits harder than a bullet when brandished by an Ork (in fact the bullet is S3 and the Ork choppa is S4). It's a matter of mass. A punch from a space marine carries a strenght and mass that many infantry weapons simply cannot match. Hence why they have the same strenght as a grenade launcher (Bolters).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
We're talking about a setting where a hand full of Marines are shown killing dozens, if not hundreds of foes in a campaign. Not even the Heavy Bolter Marine with the ammo canister backpack has enough ammo for that.

Yeah, and back when the game laughed at itself that was the point. The entire game was screaming, "Look at the big dumb fun we're having with all these over-the-top weapons and dwarves in space." Now, it wants to be treated seriously and all those earlier choices just don't jive with being taken seriously.

Spoletta wrote:
A chainsaw used as a weapon will clog.

A chainsword is designed to be a weapon and will not clog.

Also, that is only one of the many examples of melee weapons in the 40k universe. A choppa hits harder than a bullet when brandished by an Ork (in fact the bullet is S3 and the Ork choppa is S4). It's a matter of mass. A punch from a space marine carries a strenght and mass that many infantry weapons simply cannot match. Hence why they have the same strenght as a grenade launcher (Bolters).

Look at the design of a chainsword closely and explain how it would accomplish that. Hint: you can't just up the power of the chain and avoid binding through brute force.

A baseball bat also carries more energy than a bullet and modern body armor can stop almost any round (if you wear enough). Yet and you don't see soldiers charging a bunker with a bat and a flak jacket. Nor does a shot from a baseball bat tend to be as lethal as a bullet would have been in the same situation.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Space combat in almost every game is nonsense. Craft have fixed top speeds but unlimited fuel, sensors are magic and have no realistic counters, don't even get me started on needing to get lined up perfectly behind an enemy within visual range to send a missile.

It should be much more of a Cold Waters type situation but with more fuel and heat management.

If you literally cannot enjoy a stylized Jutland-meets-Midway space combat game like Battlefleet Gothic, why would you demand that the game shed those stylistic elements and become a realistic space wargame instead just to appeal to you? Why would you be looking at BFG to begin with? Why not just play a game that fits the style you want?

Or to put it more bluntly: if you want a realistic sci-fi combat game that isn't stylized at the expense of realism, what on earth are you doing playing 40K to begin with?

Good lord, man, I love Cold Waters and Attack Vector: Tactical, but that style is so far removed from the style of 40K I cannot wrap my head around wanting 40K to completely change its core style to serve a particular interest (realism) that it has literally never followed.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Maybe things changed since I went through basic in 2004, but bayonet drills were still used as a means to encourage aggression in the face of an enemy. To help push it further if we could stab the dummy hard enough to break the knife we could get a chance to call home if we wanted.

That was 15 years ago man. Things change.

Well that and we're likely talking about two different countries based on the little flags next to our names.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I feel like GW playing the ridiculious elements straight makes it more fun. Then again I am a massive fan of the missle-firing-organ-tank that is the Exorcist, and the deny-demonic-possession-through-willpower Exorcist chapter, and the fact Black Templars stole their training manual from Middle Ages Europe.

Oh, and punching-holes-through-hell-to-go-faster. That's fun too.

Why train self-defense? Just get gun!

Imagine not liking fantasy in space and playing warhammer 40k.

 Galas wrote:
Imagine not liking fantasy in space and playing warhammer 40k.

I dislike what 40k has become. I started playing with 3rd edition rules and fluff and I think it's fair to say that 8th edition in both rules and lore is a very different beast. GW has also changed the tone of the lore, changed entire factions (Necrons being the easiest example), and generally diluted the best parts of their own setting to focus on characters who always fight to a draw because nobody wants to lose their shiny toy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it's rather absurd that people think I HATE 40k or even the idea of armies doing cool stuff on the table. I literally suggested giving melee only units and melee heavy factions special rules so that they can work even if melee combat mechanics themselves aren't amazing.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Imagine not liking fantasy in space and playing warhammer 40k.

I dislike what 40k has become. I started playing with 3rd edition rules and fluff and I think it's fair to say that 8th edition in both rules and lore is a very different beast. GW has also changed the tone of the lore, changed entire factions (Necrons being the easiest example), and generally diluted the best parts of their own setting to focus on characters who always fight to a draw because nobody wants to lose their shiny toy.

3rd ed lore was written from the Imperium's limited perspective. Current Neron lore is written from a less biases viewpoint.

And always fighting to a draw? Something tells me you don't read enough of the lore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
3rd ed lore was written from the Imperium's limited perspective. Current Neron lore is written from a less biases viewpoint.

And always fighting to a draw? Something tells me you don't read enough of the lore.

That explains the changes to their color scheme, removal of them phasing out, the representation of the C'Tan even among different versions of nuCrons... They should have stayed as ancient space terminators and not become Tomb Kings 2: Immortal Boogaloo.

When we the last time a named character killed another named character and that character actually stayed dead?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
3rd ed lore was written from the Imperium's limited perspective. Current Neron lore is written from a less biases viewpoint.

And always fighting to a draw? Something tells me you don't read enough of the lore.

That explains the changes to their color scheme, removal of them phasing out, the representation of the C'Tan even among different versions of nuCrons... They should have stayed as ancient space terminators and not become Tomb Kings 2: Immortal Boogaloo.

When we the last time a named character killed another named character and that character actually stayed dead?

Color schemes are based on dynasty. Silver is still common.

Phase Out was a balance mechanic first and formost because without it Necrons broke the game in 3rd.

C'Tan being shards doesn't change how scary they are to other races, if nothing else it makes them scarier since what we've seen is a mere fraction of their whole power.

And Necrons being a second race of alien hordes that were bent on exterminating all life at the whim of a higher power just made them tech based Tyranids. Spinning them into bitter and crazed lorss over broken empires of nearly mindless automota helped add flavor into the setting.

And GW hasn't killed a named character since Tycho. Before that it mainly killed characters in 2nd edition (like most of the Sisters of Battle named characters of the time, though they killed Celestine twice in her own story in 3rd).

Named characters are more avatars of their respective factions over anything else though.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Melee already can organically make sense in the game, terrain and objectives already being an important part of that equation. Like I said, you can make a board that favors mellee over shooting rather heavily.

The issue is melee is very much forced in 40k. Marines should be using bolters in close combat over a sword that will get clogged the moment it touches anything. Almost anybody that isn't carrying a power weapon or other form of melee weapon where dealing damage isn't solely based on the user's strength will always hit less than the ranged weapon they're already carrying.

This is dictated by basic laws of physics which should be assumed to hold true in 40k for the sake of realism.

Then I think this is the wrong game for you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

. . .
And Necrons being a second race of alien hordes that were bent on exterminating all life at the whim of a higher power just made them tech based Tyranids.
. . .

Boy that line gets old. You mean as opposed to being just robot Eldar?

Oldcons were better.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Melee already can organically make sense in the game, terrain and objectives already being an important part of that equation. Like I said, you can make a board that favors mellee over shooting rather heavily.

The issue is melee is very much forced in 40k. Marines should be using bolters in close combat over a sword that will get clogged the moment it touches anything. Almost anybody that isn't carrying a power weapon or other form of melee weapon where dealing damage isn't solely based on the user's strength will always hit less than the ranged weapon they're already carrying.

This is dictated by basic laws of physics which should be assumed to hold true in 40k for the sake of realism.

Then I think this is the wrong game for you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

. . .
And Necrons being a second race of alien hordes that were bent on exterminating all life at the whim of a higher power just made them tech based Tyranids.
. . .

Boy that line gets old. You mean as opposed to being just robot Eldar?

Oldcons were better.

Right, so how are they like Eldar exactly? They're tougher, slower and have no psychic powers. I'm not seeing the comparison in stats, playstyle or lore.

And maybe it's "tiring" because it's true. 3rd ed Necrons were very limited as a faction. They didn't even have the option to adapt to their enemies like Tyranids do. They needed to change or die off as a faction to stay relevant as a faction in the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Right, so how are they like Eldar exactly? They're tougher, slower and have no psychic powers. I'm not seeing the comparison in stats, playstyle or lore.

Hah! How were they like Tyranids then, since they are none alike along any of those axis.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Right, so how are they like Eldar exactly? They're tougher, slower and have no psychic powers. I'm not seeing the comparison in stats, playstyle or lore.

Hah! How were they like Tyranids then, since they are none alike along any of those axis.

I explained what traits they shared with Tyranids, you have failed to answer my question and instead pretend you "won".

Congrats, you're posting like a 4chan troll.

To this day I do not understand why people think it was an acceptable state of affairs for the leadership of a faction to not be something that even resembles that faction. It'd be like if the God-Emperor was an elf.

The Necron lore revamp put the Necrons on center stage in their own damn lore; you can say what you want about the rest of it, but I will not accept any opinion that says the C'tan being the leadership units was a good thing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Right, so how are they like Eldar exactly? They're tougher, slower and have no psychic powers. I'm not seeing the comparison in stats, playstyle or lore.

Hah! How were they like Tyranids then, since they are none alike along any of those axis.

I explained what traits they shared with Tyranids, you have failed to answer my question and instead pretend you "won".

Congrats, you're posting like a 4chan troll.

That's the shortest time to "troll" accusation I've seen in a while, man.

Oldcrons and Tyranids are not alike in stats, playstyle or lore, the three "axis of difference" you just defined for them in comparison to Eldar. So I just counter-challenge you to define why they were similar to Nids. Purely the fact that they were looking to exterminate/herd-to-slaughter all life? That's pretty shallow in comparison to how different they were in design. Say what you want about the Oldcron codex, it had balls. Limited options, but specifically OP with the Phase Out rule to mitigate it. The Monolith being a monster of a unit, and rather than make it 0-1 or something, use the fact that it hurt your Phase Out numbers to stop you from spamming them. That was good stuff.

Now they have Jetbikes. Not keyword Jetbikes like Destroyers in the 3rd book, which were like centaur-bikes. But little robot men riding little jetbikes. That's like Eldar. They're high tech, like Eldar, and their squad options are really limited like Aspect Warriors. All their vehicles are skimmers. They have "Avatars". They talk and ally with other races.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
To this day I do not understand why people think it was an acceptable state of affairs for the leadership of a faction to not be something that even resembles that faction. It'd be like if the God-Emperor was an elf.

The Necron lore revamp put the Necrons on center stage in their own damn lore; you can say what you want about the rest of it, but I will not accept any opinion that says the C'tan being the leadership units was a good thing.

I don't see why it's an issue. And is the Emperor really like a human? Are the Chaos Gods really like the cult legions?

Ah ues, Necrons never had anything that looked like a Jetbike....


And army feel/theme, the way I described Nids vs Crons, still doesn't overlap between Eldar and Crons so I still don't know what horse your on but you need to get off it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Ah ues, Necrons never had anything that looked like a Jetbike....

Spoiler:

And army feel/theme, the way I described Nids vs Crons, still doesn't overlap between Eldar and Crons so I still don't know what horse your on but you need to get off it.

Speed, toughness and psychic ability were your measuring sticks too, my friend.

They did have something like a jetbike, originally. Then they decided to take them in a more unique direction in the 3rd Ed. book, with some strong game and lore design choices around them, adding to their uniqueness.
- - -
And then we got tomb kings in space.

But your original Nid vs. Necrons comparison isn't even accurate: "And Necrons being a second race of alien hordes that were bent on exterminating all life at the whim of a higher power just made them tech based Tyranids." since A: Nids don't have a higher power, and B: There was evidence that Necrons weren't out to exterminate all life, but rather to harvest it like cattle. But if you'd like to make a case that NuCron galactic domination is unique, be my guest.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Right, so how are they like Eldar exactly? They're tougher, slower and have no psychic powers. I'm not seeing the comparison in stats, playstyle or lore.

Hah! How were they like Tyranids then, since they are none alike along any of those axis.

I explained what traits they shared with Tyranids, you have failed to answer my question and instead pretend you "won".

Congrats, you're posting like a 4chan troll.

You've not explained anything really. You've commented on a passing conceptual similarity and decided that reflects in toto the faction.

You've done the equivalent of saying 'elephants, because they have feet, are very similar to humans'. if you define similar purely by 'has feet' then sure.

It's not whether they are similar or not, it's whether your argument framework is logically sound or not and the way you've set it up, you've made it axiomatically true. And as insectum points out, many of your assertions about Tyranids are either not described accurately or just wrong...

Nids don't answer to a higher power? Boy wait until you discover the Hive Mind. Your mind will be blown!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nids don't answer to a higher power? Boy wait until you discover the Hive Mind. Your mind will be blown!

The original quote:
"And Necrons being a second race of alien hordes that were bent on exterminating all life at the whim of a higher power just made them tech based Tyranids."

And your phrasing 'answer to', in no way accurately reflect the relationship the tyranids have with their gestalt hive mind. It doesn't have whims and nothing answers to it as they are all one single mind. If you think the hive mind is some kind of Tzeentchian god commanding its legions to fight, then you don't understand what it is.

In 3rd C'Tan were presented as said "higher power" over the Necron race.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nids don't answer to a higher power? Boy wait until you discover the Hive Mind. Your mind will be blown!

The Hive Mind has consistently been portrayed as a gestalt intelligence composed of the collective consciousness of its constituent organisms. That's very different from the Necrons being slaves to the C'tan.

A Tyranid doesn't 'answer to' the Hive Mind any more than my webserver 'answers to' the Internet. The Tyranid is part of the Hive Mind. The webserver is part of the Internet.

...Unless you're referring to the very recent fluff which portrays the Hive Mind as some weird anthropomorphic warp entity inexplicably separated from the Tyranid race, without rectifying its direct contradiction to all prior fluff. But that didn't exist when Necrons were redesigned, so isn't relevant to the discussion.

 catbarf wrote:

...Unless you're referring to the very recent fluff which portrays the Hive Mind as some weird anthropomorphic warp entity inexplicably separated from the Tyranid race . . .

Oh no. . . they didn't . . . did they?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

...Unless you're referring to the very recent fluff which portrays the Hive Mind as some weird anthropomorphic warp entity inexplicably separated from the Tyranid race . . .

Oh no. . . they didn't . . . did they?

It has high enough thoughts that it can decide it doesn't like Blood Angels, so I think it's pretty safe to say that, regardless of its physical presence, it has it's own thought process outside eating.