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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If we go by the premise that this entire thought experiment is just to increase profits, the people arguing that SM's should be cut would all be fired. Talking about shaking dead weight off the tree. Yeah, lets take the hottest selling thing off the market, and waste all the advertising and stuff we've spent the last 2 years building.

But that isn't what most of the posts in this thread are trying to do. Most of the posts are just venting opinions about factions the posters don't like, or that they feel are taking away valuable design space they would rather have spent on their factions. The most popular cut seems to be knights. Last I checked those were pretty big sellers. Few are basing their choices on what would be profitable, instead it's just a way to push their own personal biases. Lots of people don't like marines, so they go straight for them. This is just another excuse to complain about other people's armies.

But as far as I read there were also a lot of propositions were it was just rolling together armies to reduce the number of Codices/armies without really "killing of" the modellines and "toys" people want to play with. All the mentiones of "Imperial/Chaos Knights into one Codex" (and there where a lot) or "GSC into Tyranids", "IK into AdMech", "Custodes + SOS + Assassins into Imperial Agents" or "Inquisition into Grey Knights" don't really say "I want that GK players cannot play anymore *evillaugh*", but merely "In my personal view those two armies do not necessarily have to be separated to work out." Note that even if GK and Inquisition were one army, no one would keep you from playing a pure GK army.


On that topic, just because it was not mentioned so far: as much as I personally love them, DKOK has few enough stand alone stuff that it can be rolled into IG without much loss. And while we are at it, one might as well give Renegades and Heretics and Elysians the option to play there armies again by including them too. It would not be that hard to formulate their special flavor as Regimental traits, include a couple of regiment specific units and a list of "forbidden" ones.

 Sim-Life wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If we go by the premise that this entire thought experiment is just to increase profits.

That wasn't what OP said.
Also I want rid of Marine because they're over-exposed. By the fluff they're super rare and semi-mythical to most people, even many Imperial Guard regiments will never see ONE, let alone an entire army of them. Entire planets believe that they're literal angels. By how 40k plays you think they're more numerous than the Imperial Guard.

Gee, it's almost like them being in starter sets and not requiring you to have huge chunks of models could be a selling point.

Shout out to Inquisitor Lord Katherine!

I always love it when discussions of toy soldiers lead to philosophical underpinnings; some hate this, but I think it is what makes games worth playing and other art worth consuming. Thanks also to those who participated in this angle of the larger thread- philosophical underpinnings cannot truly be examined without point/ counterpoint.

Before I wade into the GSC business, I'd also like to say that while I personally advocate for the Imperial Agents dex as a solution to the Inquisition, I think Lord Kat's suggestion of folding each Ordo into their Chamber Militant's Dex is a far better solution to the Inquisition problem than combining some Chambers into a common dex, which would be a disaster.

Okay, GSC time:

First and foremost, I see Kat's point and problem and there is a lot of validity to this opinion. I'm posting now, but the implications of this point of view are likely to stick with me long after this post and thread are forgotten. The 21st Century in particular, but to a lesser extent the 20th and even late 19th centuries have really advocated for healthier ways to depict women and women's issues in the arts. What's more, women are increasingly involved in the creation of these representations themselves.

I believe all of this is as it should be- in fact it should have happened several centuries earlier; in an ideal world, the dominance of patriarchal societies should never have occurred in the first place.

Now I diverge:

The GSC was the thing that made me a lifelong 40k player in the first place, and I started playing in '89. The 2nd ed Tyranid codex was bar none, my favourite until Witch Hunters. It was the re-release of the GSC at the tag end of 7th that drew me back to 40k after a 5 year hiatus, though attention to Sisters was instrumental in keeping me through 8th. It was Crusade that kept me in 9th, but that's another story.

Without the GSC breeding cycle, the army really is just an H.R. Giger knock-off; it's the breeding cycle that makes the army unique. And what's more, it isn't just unique enough to distinguish it from Giger- I would argue that it is unique in the gaming industry as a whole.

The GSC smashes the notion that this hobby is just a kids hobby. In other discussions of feminist theory that have come up on these boards from time to time, many have pointed out that in North America, art forms such as animation are seen as being primarily a medium for children; I would argue that there similar attitudes toward gaming, and games of all stripes. If you look at Anime, you'll see what I mean... And I'm not even talking about Hentai. G-Force, aka Battle of the Planets, my favourite cartoon as a 6-12 year old was actually a dumbed down version of a Japanese original, much like Power Rangers or Sailor Moon. The originals upon which these American knock-offs are based have varying degrees of philosophical and emotional depth in their originals which got lost in translation. It wasn't until Macross crossed the pond that North America got a taste of what a true grown up cartoon could look like, and Akira cemented the deal. Of course there were outliers- Heavy Metal (both the magazine and the movie(s)), Wizards and Fritz the Cat etc. Macross and Akira differed by being mature, but not adults-only.

BTW- It's no coincidence that Macross too had a huge influence on 40k via the Tau.

Kat's post makes me reconsider my early affection and enthusiasm for the GSC. It doesn't eliminate it, but it makes me think about how emotionally healthy or unhealthy it may be. Considering that 40k is a game which may be played by not only our sons, but our daughters, it is worth thinking about.

For me, the challenge has been to create the narrative that makes the army less problematic. Not all players will do this, of course; I was always closer to an understanding of feminist ideology than many of my male counterparts because my personal family dynamic was essentially a matriarchy, where the women were omnipresent, nurturing, intelligent and compassionate, while the men tended to be caustic, aggressive, mildly threatening and often absent (with a few notable exceptions: RIP Ron).

To respond to some of Kat's specifics: any form of mind control, really, is akin to the concept of rape, and in that sense, GSC is problematic, despite anything that I might include in my narratives to lessen the creep factor. However, that also puts a lot of other factions under a microscope. What makes the GSC particularly problematic is the way this mind control interacts with both sexuality and gender.

To be clear, humans become brood brothers/ hybrids in one of 3 ways:

1/ They are infected by a purestrain.
2/ They are born from a union with at least one infected parent.
3/ They are impregnated by someone who has been infected by a purestrain.

Number 1, from a sexual violence perspective, is not particular problematic; the violence is inter-species, and it crosses gender lines often enough that no particular line can truly be said to exist. Sure, it still plays with themes of control and powerlessness, but the notion of sexuality as a part of that process is severely backgrounded.

Number 2 is slightly more problematic, but not to the level of super-creep. It's problematic because it plays upon natural human fears about reproduction in general. Other famous works of art that examine similar themes would be the Greek myths regarding the birth of the Gods and their war with the Titans, in which we see children rebel against parents who would devour them- ironically to prevent rebellion and displacement. Another more contemporary example is Faith No More's Zombie Eaters. Weird title, I know, but the song is about how babies alter the thinking and behaviour of women- a process that begins in utero and continues for the entire lifespan of the child.

Both of these works, from a feminist perspective, are problematic as one is the underpinning of an entire patriarchal culture and the other, to my knowledge, was written exclusively by men. But as I mentioned earlier, I am closer to the women in my family than the men, to which I would add I have more friends and coworkers who are women than men. Many of these individuals (who of course shall remain nameless) have shared thoughts with me, before, during and after pregnancy about the control a child exerts upon them- things like feeling the pregnancy cravings are the child exerting its will, or feeling physical pain when they hear the baby cry.

There's a whole host of deeply rooted psychological factors related to childbirth for men and women, and the GSC hits you right in the brain stem by unpacking this baggage. It isn't always pleasant or comfortable.

Method 3, I think, is the one about which Lord Kat is likely most concerned (sorry to put words in your mouth Kat- please disagree if I've mistakenly interpreted your posts). I would say there is very good reason to be wary of this piece of the lore, and to tread carefully. I will try to do that, but I'm a dude, so my perspective is not really the one that matters here.

It is true, according to the lore, that if a male brood brother commits an act of rape against an uninitiated human woman, and that rape ends in a pregnancy, the woman becomes a member of the brood via the retro viral effects of interfacing with infected DNA.

It is also true that a human woman woman who is infected by a purestrain loses her ability to consent, which means that although subsequent sexual relations are less violent, they are no less rape. The inability to consent is something which is also common to Slaanesh, though Slaanesh is more fluid were gender is concerned; the Lord of Excess inhibits the ability to consent in men and women. The same can be said of GSC, though less accurately, due in part to the fact that the beings with whom men will partner under this malign influence are still, for the most part human, while in the case of Slaanesh, the copulations would occur with various daemonic entities. This reading, however, is also problematic, in that it offers a tacit acceptance of the harmful stereotype that men in general do not object to casual sex whenever the opportunity presents itself.

In my personal GSC fluff, brood brothers (male and female) always bring their potential uninitiated human mates to the cult for infection prior to their relations. From a Cult perspective, this makes sense because crime can lead to early detection of the cult, and it's especially dangerous because it's not the sexual act that converts one to the cult- it's the resulting pregnancy. My Cults also make an effort to recruit those who are already disenfranchised, and they favour operatives who come willingly after exposure to the dogma. A cult will not turn away brood brothers embraced by more violent or coercive means, but their leadership caste within the brood tends to consist of those who accept the tenets of the cult before receiving the curse.

Of course, what I do with my fluff doesn't make even my cult entirely problem free, nor does it make the army itself less problematic- especially since very few players are likely to think about these things as much as I have over the past 31 years.

To close, I want to tell you about one of the Cults I built during the absence of official rules; the Cult was built using Tim Huckleberry's Citadel Journal list.

Althea Chekobi was the daughter of a Commissar, and he had ensured that she was trained in combat at the progenium in the hopes that she would be accepted as a novitiate for the sisters. Prior to her visit from the Cannoness to welcome her into the Orders of the Sororitas, however, she is attacked by a purestrain and converted.

Due to her training, the psychic impulse to breed does not take root. This is noted by senior members of the Cult, who bring her before the Magus to reinforce the psychological conditioning. It is then that she reveals her training and identity to the Cult, and she convinces the Magus to consider that her martial prowess and knowledge of the fighting forces of the Imperium are far more useful to the Cult than her capacity as a breeder (please forgive my use of the term).

While the Magus is convinced, he wants approval from the Patriarch. I used Tim's rules for the Young Patriarch to represent this character- and he was unique in many ways. For example, he created a name- Ch'trl- to be more appealing and relatable to his brood. When the Magus brings Althea to him, Ch'trl decides to test her prowess.

Obviously, the alien toys with her, never revealing the true extent of its own might, but it is impressed with her ability to adapt to his rhythm and attack patterns, and he sees a tremendous potential. Ultimately, he agrees to use her as a militant- taking her under his alien wing and personally teaching her, among other things, to run like a genestealer.

Ch'trl and Althea are two of my favourite characters that I've created- and not just in 40k; in 31 years, I've played dozens of different pen and paper RPGS and hundreds of characters. But these two were always special.

And now I'm running a campaign that explores the growth of both a Genestealer Cult and a Cult of Slaanesh. Clearly, I have some psychological baggage of my own, and it is important to me to work these things out using all the tools at my disposal. It is my hope that someday, this campaign inspires me to write for Black Library, and I hope to touch upon some of this psychology when and if that happens. For what it is worth, I think the story would be better told by a woman, because as referenced several times in this post, I'm well aware of how problematic mansplaining is when it comes to issues like this one.

In the end, I decided to post anyway, because I wasn't sure that Kat's post would get the kind of response I think it deserves if I stayed silent.

To everyone else, I'm sorry to be off topic from OP- this issue could be a thread of it's own; again, I'm not sure how well such a thread would be received; there can be a lot of uncomfortable knee-jerk reactions from players who feel alienated by these types of discussions.

Last but not least (I promise!), I think it's worth pointing out that all of the psychological baggage surrounding both Slaanesh and GSC make the SoB the perfect faction to fight against these forces, and from a fluff perspective, as both have connections to witchery and Imperial citizens, this is true even when one chooses to ignore the deeper, underlying psychology.

Speaking of which... Have you ever considered the problematic nature of the use of the word "Witch" from a gendered perspective, given the actions of the real world Inquisition? Even without the GSC, the deeply rooted psychological perspectives regarding sexual violence are difficult to avoid once you are willing to acknowledge that they exist.

Peace all, and sorry to open a can of worms. Mods redact please if you fear psychological harm.

PenitentJake wrote:


Speaking of which... Have you ever considered the problematic nature of the use of the word "Witch" from a gendered perspective, given the actions of the real world Inquisition? Even without the GSC, the deeply rooted psychological perspectives regarding sexual violence are difficult to avoid once you are willing to acknowledge that they exist.

No, because the term "witch" in 40k refers to both men and women and over the course of even "just" the 10,000 years that passed since the Horus Heresy it has come to mean something entirely different from any connotations we give to it now. I don't think a single person in the Imperium has ever sat and given a single thought as to the origin of the term witch. It would be like us trying to decipher the original connotations of a caveman grunt.

 Sim-Life wrote:

I don't think a single person in the Imperium has ever sat and given a single thought as to the origin of the term witch. It would be like us trying to decipher the original connotations of a caveman grunt.

Absolutely true, of course. My question was more about the psychological impact upon the players and real world humans, rather than the fictional entities that populate the constructed world of the game. And certainly the witches of 40k, as you point out, are equally likely to be men as women.

Your point is still valid, and I think the majority of players understand the 40k gender neutrality, though those non-players who happen to walk by a table just in time to hear a player yell "Burn these vile witches in the name of our Holy Emperor!" may not.

Unfortunately, in the real world, those persecuted as witches were predominantly women. Accusations of witchcraft were tools of the patriarchy, often used to punish a) matriarchal wise-women whose teachings had the capacity to undermine those of the church or b) women who resisted the sexual overtures of self-entitled men.

Fortunately, the term "Heretic" is more gender neutral in the real world and it is also an alternative which is equally accepted by many players.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

I don't think a single person in the Imperium has ever sat and given a single thought as to the origin of the term witch. It would be like us trying to decipher the original connotations of a caveman grunt.

Absolutely true, of course. My question was more about the psychological impact upon the players and real world humans, rather than the fictional entities that populate the constructed world of the game. And certainly the witches of 40k, as you point out, are equally likely to be men as women.

Your point is still valid, and I think the majority of players understand the 40k gender neutrality, though those non-players who happen to walk by a table just in time to hear a player yell "Burn these vile witches in the name of our Holy Emperor!" may not.

Unfortunately, in the real world, those persecuted as witches were predominantly women. Accusations of witchcraft were tools of the patriarchy, often used to punish a) matriarchal wise-women whose teachings had the capacity to undermine those of the church or b) women who resisted the sexual overtures of self-entitled men.

Fortunately, the term "Heretic" is more gender neutral in the real world and it is also an alternative which is equally accepted by many players.

i think you underestimate just how stable most players are psychologically if you think that it would lead to issues.

Also games shops are way to rarely visited by non inducted into the hobby.

Thirdly i am unsure but i think i read somewhere that targets actually were quite varied in gender depending upon place and therefore society altough it was predominantly lower standing people.

 bullyboy wrote:
So the head of GW dies of a heart attack and his son with a real bad comb over comes into the board meeting and states that "you have to trim the fat. I'm yanking 5 armies from the 40K line...today, you guys figure it out". And just as he is leaving the board room, he turns and remarks "And no Bill, marine supplements count as a single choice, not one each....and I'm talking the ones from last year, not the ones coming out the next few months. get it done".

Who do you drop?

Me....

GSC
Custodes
Harlequins (even though I love them)
Marine supplements (Ultras, RG, IF, Sallies, WS, IH)
And....probably between TSons and DG.... I'd have to go Tsons.

GSC,
Custodes,
Knights,
Chaos knights
Harlequins.

Audustum wrote:
If we're just trying to maximize profits:

1. Corsairs
2. Grey Knights (no Primaris)
3. Orks (they only seem popular on Dakka)
4. Old Marines
5. Most the Inquisition stuff.

If I was just eliminating my 5 least favorite (which is how I think a fair amount of people see the thread, including me originally):

No one. I love all you crazy factions. Now please stop saying you'd all kill my Custodes :(

Orkz are one of the most popular and played factions in the game Source cited

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/04/40k-community-the-state-of-the-war.html

Grey Knights (we have too many super-super marines)
Necrons (they are just a mess of failed attempts to find them a place in fiction)
Custodes (See Grey Knights)
Inquisition/Agents (Roll them into AM or SoB and just jettison all this special faction of sub-factions crap)
Imperial Knight/Chaos Knights (again, roll them into the existing factions. Its a faction for less than a dozen model kits and almost never deploys on it own anyway)

SemperMortis wrote:

Audustum wrote:
If we're just trying to maximize profits:

1. Corsairs
2. Grey Knights (no Primaris)
3. Orks (they only seem popular on Dakka)
4. Old Marines
5. Most the Inquisition stuff.

If I was just eliminating my 5 least favorite (which is how I think a fair amount of people see the thread, including me originally):

No one. I love all you crazy factions. Now please stop saying you'd all kill my Custodes :(

Orkz are one of the most popular and played factions in the game Source cited

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/04/40k-community-the-state-of-the-war.html

Source is four and a half years old, going by the URL (as I'm not risking my laptop going on there) - has anyone done a more recent survey?

I would clean design space around the notion of Chaos and Imperium, keeping as much as possible the models as legit or valid proxies. also, consolidating is too easy as answer, but at the same time models have to stay... I would consider them a flavour of another army (as the Guard differs from planet to planet).

- Demons - they still have AoS, and their flavour is already in Possessed, Warp Smith and demonic vehicle/equipment and CSM Demon Prince. They are also and hassle to properly reflect in terms of rules on the battlefield.

- Grey Knight or Custodes - more than one superhuman ++ have to go. Probably Custodes, or both.

- Ynnari Is almost too easy to say, so I will say Ynnari + Harlequins. Another faction difficult to implement that can be a flavour of another Elder faction.

- Adeptus Mechanicus. armies of Mars may be a flavour of Guard, and Titan Legion and big war machine may be a flavour of the Knight Codex (that at this point will have more units, troops and such).

- Genestealer Cult. I love them, but they can also work as flavour of Guard and I feel like they belong to smaller games like Necromunda and such.

- obviously, I would also consolidate anything together as much as possible: Inquisition for Grey Knight and Deathwatch, etc.etc Squatting SM supplements for example is a given.

If I had to eliminate model lines wholesale, I would eliminate...

Knights / Chaos Knights - They're nice models, but I really only like facing a single Super Heavy as a sort of centrepiece. So if eliminating the model line eliminated the "whole army" of super heavies... I'd do it.

Grey Knights / Custodes / Sisters of Silence - I feel like a "single source" for Imperial Power Armour troops is sufficient, and SoS feels like something that could reasonably have been folded into Sisters of Battle.

Ynari / Harlequins - I mean, it's basically one unit, a vehicle, and a handful of characters between them. That's not really an "army".

Daemons - At least, as a stand-alone army. Ported into the Chaos codex feels like an appropriate place for them, but again, I don't think I've ever played against a pure-Daemon army in 40k. They just feel weird as a stand-alone force.


What I'd like to see, is an Imperial Agents codex, Agents of Chaos codex, and a Xenos Auxiliaries codex. Each of those would hold the odds-and-ends of models that don't fit anywhere else.

Imperial Agents would have Custodes, Inquisition, Assassins, Grey Knights, and Super Heavies.

Agents of Chaos would have Chaos Super Heavies, Cypher and Fallen, and maybe rules for Renegades (like mutants, traitor guard, that sort of thing)

Xenos Auxiliaries could have things like Harlies, Ynari, Kroot and other "Mercenaries", and things like the Xenos beasts from Blackstone. Super Heavies, as well. I think there's some interesting design space to make Multi-Xenos auxiliaries that work like the different Imperial Agents. Kroot Snipers as sort-of assassins. Ancient monsters that the Orks or Drukhari have subjugated and use as Super Heavies. Other humanoid infantry that might hold a grudge against the Imperium / Chaos but would be willing to work for Orks, Aeldar, or Necrons.

I mean, it still really leaves Tyranids swinging in the wind. I have always found their "mindless devourer" fluff to be a distinctive limitation in terms of expanding them. Maybe come up with some Tyra-new fluff making the hive fleets a little more independent and personal? I know that's not something anyone really wants though.

hmm. I'd say try to bring things back to how they were at the end of 2nd ed. GSC are part of tyranids. Ditto for Harliquins and Eldar. grey knights, custodes, ect simple all fall under "agents of the imperium" and all that stuff. Ynnari was just a bad idea from the beginning.

 jobalisk wrote:
hmm. I'd say try to bring things back to how they were at the end of 2nd ed. GSC are part of tyranids. Ditto for Harliquins and Eldar. grey knights, custodes, ect simple all fall under "agents of the imperium" and all that stuff. Ynnari was just a bad idea from the beginning.

It's sort of semantics with GSC and Nids. The 2nd Ed Tyranid Codex had the genestealer army in it, but it was playable as a completely separate army. It was a 2fer in the same way that the 2nd ed Chaos book had the rules for Daemon armies in it.

SemperMortis wrote:

Audustum wrote:
If we're just trying to maximize profits:

1. Corsairs
2. Grey Knights (no Primaris)
3. Orks (they only seem popular on Dakka)
4. Old Marines
5. Most the Inquisition stuff.

If I was just eliminating my 5 least favorite (which is how I think a fair amount of people see the thread, including me originally):

No one. I love all you crazy factions. Now please stop saying you'd all kill my Custodes :(

Orkz are one of the most popular and played factions in the game Source cited

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/04/40k-community-the-state-of-the-war.html

As noted, that's old. I feel like they've declined since then. On the other hand, it's our only data point so they likely remain somewhat popular. On my other, other hand, they don't have lots of new shiny models to sell. Just a few things. So if we were trying to maximize cash and minimize effort, they get the boot as their sales are likely drained up.

 Dysartes wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Audustum wrote:
If we're just trying to maximize profits:

1. Corsairs
2. Grey Knights (no Primaris)
3. Orks (they only seem popular on Dakka)
4. Old Marines
5. Most the Inquisition stuff.

If I was just eliminating my 5 least favorite (which is how I think a fair amount of people see the thread, including me originally):

No one. I love all you crazy factions. Now please stop saying you'd all kill my Custodes :(

Orkz are one of the most popular and played factions in the game Source cited

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/04/40k-community-the-state-of-the-war.html

Source is four and a half years old, going by the URL (as I'm not risking my laptop going on there) - has anyone done a more recent survey?

And you inadvertently made me feel old already. (for myself)

Geez, I thought people were being jerks by wanting to cut out Custodes, now I see people want to delete Daemons from the game? Ya'll are crazy.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Geez, I thought people were being jerks by wanting to cut out Custodes, now I see people want to delete Daemons from the game? Ya'll are crazy.

Sadly we dont have here Peregrine to arguee how Tyranids should be deleted.

This topic may as well be re-titled, 'Armies that I don't like and why I think you shouldn't like them, too.'

I've never seen a thread collapse into irrelevance so quickly, before.

 Galas wrote:

Sadly we dont have here Peregrine to arguee how Tyranids should be deleted.

Whatever happened to ol' Perry?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone seriously suggesting that Space Marines should be dropped, in toto, is just being salty.

SamusDrake wrote:
What is laughable is that they are wasting time on factions that do not belong in a game of troops'n'tanks and all out war.

Careful what you say about who and who does not belong. A lot would argue that Custodes have no place on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Even more would say that Knights shouldn't be playable in 40k scale.

To be fair, that is kind of a legitimate problem, on both ends. If we made a modern combat game and made factions there the way GW makes them, we'd have Codex Syrian Rebels, Codex PLA, Codex FBI, Codex IRGC, Codex US 1st Armored Division, Codex LAPD Swat, Codex Secret Service, Codex Russia, Codex Royal Navy, Codex Favela Gangs, Codex Marine Expeditionary Corps, Codex NATO Reaction Force, Codex Los Zetas, and expect these wildly mismatched factions to all to play against each other.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Sadly we dont have here Peregrine to arguee how Tyranids should be deleted.

Whatever happened to ol' Perry?

Eaten by Nids, obviously.

Dump eldar and tau, first benefit, no more broken, unfun garbage in the game, second, less duplication and clutter (we already have ynnari and dark eldar in first niche, both of which are frankly more interesting concept, just move good eldar bits to ynnari and call it a day). As for tau, leave ethereals and fireblades as HQs, then turn the book into 'alien mercenaries and auxiliaries army' which is again more interesting concept). The less LEGO suits, the better.

Third army? Let's squat squatmarines, the models are mostly ugly, and it will mean no more inane screeching, whining and conspiracy theories about sQaTtiNg (that still didn't materialized after what, 5 years?). Win-win

That leaves us with pretty nice rooster, but if we were to drop two more armies, I'd pick SW (BA and BT have 'melee SM' niche covered and wolfwolfwolves and wolfballerinas were a mistake) and DA (again, BT have 'knightly SM' niche covered and their tabards look much better than ridiculous pajamas DA sport). Move any good bits worth saving to other SM, done.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Sadly we dont have here Peregrine to arguee how Tyranids should be deleted.

Whatever happened to ol' Perry?

Eaten by Nids, obviously.

Peregrine Falcons are the fastest animals on Earth, capable of achieving 300+ km/h. They can do this, because their terminal velocity is quite high, and they effectively skydive onto their prey.

Problem is, sometimes they fail to realize their trajectory isn’t good, and they fail to adjust. In that case, failing to change course in time results in a 300 km/h argument with the ground.

The ground always wins.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Geez, I thought people were being jerks by wanting to cut out Custodes, now I see people want to delete Daemons from the game? Ya'll are crazy.

For what its worth the Custodes look friggin super cool, are endorsed by Superman himself and quite frankly its too late to ditch them anyway as they have a proper codex and model range.

Like the Admech, Genestealer Cults and others, the Custard Creams are not going anywhere.

 Galas wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Geez, I thought people were being jerks by wanting to cut out Custodes, now I see people want to delete Daemons from the game? Ya'll are crazy.

Sadly we dont have here Peregrine to arguee how Tyranids should be deleted.

For all the disagreements regarding Tyranids, Peregrine was still one of the best posters here.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Geez, I thought people were being jerks by wanting to cut out Custodes, now I see people want to delete Daemons from the game? Ya'll are crazy.

Yeah Daemons, really? They are so rooted in the lore and the whole Chaos vs Imperium, id love to see them being rolled into Chaos Marine Codex and then rename it to Chaos Codex. But i dont know if thats crazy talk, i feel the daemons army feels quite lackluster in terms of unit choices and potency on its own. And have so for many years UNLESS you do some tzeentch buffstacking etc.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Geez, I thought people were being jerks by wanting to cut out Custodes, now I see people want to delete Daemons from the game? Ya'll are crazy.

Sadly we dont have here Peregrine to arguee how Tyranids should be deleted.

For all the disagreements regarding Tyranids, Peregrine was still one of the best posters here.

Yeah, it had your same disregard for respecting other posters. Or opinions others than his own.

Please refrain from discussing other posters and stick to the topic at hand.

Five lines and supplements each count independently? So I am taking line as ending the model production and relegation of that thing to being in the fluff only which is quite a brutal sanction but ok.

Assuming the a fiscal business decision wasn't the way we're going (as then it'd be mainly but not entirely sales based), then...

Blood Angels - Super soldier vampies? Combat based? Nah. Their fluff is a little interesting but overall they're just not different enough from normal marines outside of their one gimmick - "we thirst blood". Not saying it's not cool, but with 20,000,000 other space marines out there and plenty of 'we walk that grey line already' we don't need space vampires; it's a cliche genre that's been done to death.

Iron Hands AND Salamanders - Similar to blood angels. They just don't have enough flavour to be distinct enough and have all the hoo-ha. Again, not saying they're not cool, not saying they've not been developed but loyal Space Marines need a trim and Wolves/DA/WS have enough distinction in the way they all play in addition to their fluff to keep them worthwhile separate things. With Ad Mech around, Iron Hands don't need to be and Salamanders are just even less relevant as their own line/faction - we use flamers and melta a lot, lets have more attention than 4 other factions combined.

Ideally i'd boot all supplement factions and just have them as different coloured guys from the one main book with perhaps some different rules available. The most they'd get would be some unique characters, a bit like 3rd ed or a bit more stripped back from where Crimson fists are presently. Ultramarines would need to stay as they're that vanilla base line.

Ynnari - I think the basic idea had merit but that the delivery was just poor. I think that the fluff informing Ynnari itself could have been built into Craftworld Eldar purely as a variation of their existing rules without being a different faction entirely. It's one i'd want to re-visit at a later date but suspend the models for now.

GSC or Tempestus - Too similar to other factions. They don't particularly add anything to the game play and take time/resources away from other factions, such as their own 'parent' factions (AM and Nids). Again, i'm not saying they don't have interesting fluff but if we had something for every bit of fluff...

Books i'd consolidate (honourary mention):

Thousand Sons, Chaos Daemons, Agents of Bile, All other supplement of chaos & Death Guard back into a Legions of Chaos book. None of them needed to be seperated to be expanded and some of them don't need the expansion they have (do DG really need a new character?). Ideally, there would be a section of the book titled 'Of Bastards and Broken things' or, better yet, Lost and Damned and this would have rules for using imperium units as traitors (ie, Imperial Guard, Ad-mech Knights, Inquisitors & Space Marine legions). Rules for mutants would be standard right next to cultists & CSM in the main part of the book.

Grey Knights, Death Watch, Inquisition, Knights and Assassins all into a single book. I do think that GK and DW should be able to operate as their own fighting armies in skirmishes but they shouldn't have the variety they do (and that's coming from me as a GK players). The GK and DW lines should be consolidated and toned up a little to be leaner as they'd have the support of the Inquisiton and allies. Knights should be in a similar slot - able to ally with other armies but the difference being they should only be allies and not their own fighting force.

Harlequins and Talons of the Emperor, similar to GK and DW, are fine to have their own stuff to fight as individual armies but they should all be that sort of specialised line that is perhaps based out of forgeworld and a kind of 'collectors army' situation whereby they're not often seen or made a fuss of but they're available, a bit more expensive and ready to collect and/or play with if you'd like. Made to order as a 40th birthday gift for Mum or Dad situation, like the fine china.