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.

And how many of my Ork gunz got a buff bud? That isn't a valid argument for why bolters need a buff.

I am not following you, what do bolters have to do with basic orks being bad? Why should A marine players of multiple factions want their weapons be brought down to the level of a unit that ork players only take because they have to? B since went does it make any sense to compare stuff downwards.
So yeah orks are bad, but why should any non ork player care. And as you said it yourself there are far more factions using bolters then orks.

So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.

But he is not wrong. Look what units are run by marines right now. A lot of them don't even get the -1AP buff in tactical doctrine. And again you have GK, 1ksons, DG, csm and SoB who all use bolters and do not have doctrines vs SW, DA,IF,RG, WS, DW and marines who do. That is hardly 90% At best it is two thirds.

Insectum7 wrote:Points value represents the value on the tabletop, not the value in the setting itself. The tabletop interactions are pretty superficial, being reduced roughly down to Damage In/Out. Much of a Marine's actual value is either not well represented through the game mechanics (morale), or just not within the scope of the game (speed of deployment/combat endurance).

I get what you're saying, but their tabletop value should be much higher regardless. Attributes like strength, speed, skill, constitution, awareness, psychology, etc. are all represented to some extent on the tabletop, as are weaponry, armor, tactics... almost all of which are toned down for Marines.

A boltgun is just one aspect of this (and it could be argued that the suggestions in this thread are compromises, and that a fluffy bolter would be even more powerful). I can only imagine the ire if we went into everything else.

SemperMortis wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Astartes weren't created for that purpose; they were created to wage total war in humanity's reclamation of the stars, i.e. as transhuman legionary footsoldiers of the Great Crusade. The Imperial Army was formed to support the Astartes and provide garrison forces.

Astartes may be rarer now, and deploy in smaller numbers, but they aren't conventional special forces. They're supremely-armed and armoured superhuman shock troops who occasionally fulfil a special forces role. And each Astartes requires hundreds or thousands of times the investment (material and otherwise) of even the most elite special forces operative today.

18 pts...

They were designed as force multipliers in the old fluff, the new fluff is yet again written from a fanboy perspective with little to no ability to grasp common sense which is self evident by their number counts.

So... we should just ignore the whole Great Crusade/Horus Heresy aspect, because you dislike it?

SemperMortis wrote:Regardless, the original question was

Why go through the laborious, gruelling, decades-long process of transforming a human into an Astartes... implanting them with dozens of new organs, the black carapace, precious (and dwindling?) geneseed stocks, etc... sourcing sacred armaments, ancient suits of armour and other priceless equipment for them, all of which requires rigorous ongoing maintenance by extensive retinues of techpriests and their assistants (and some serious incense and candle budgets)... indoctrinating these men, training them relentlessly for upwards of twenty hours every day... if grabbing four dudes off the street and handing them mass-produced flak jackets and lasrifles would prove more valuable on the battlefield (literally, Conscripts are 28% the cost of a Tac Marine)?

And my answer was, if the game was more reality based, as a force multiplier rather than to win entire wars on their own...kind of like how in the vast majority of the fluff, they augment imperial forces rather than launch entire global spanning wars of their own.

But this is going around in circles and sidestepping my point. They were initially created to be the Imperial forces, to be the ultimate footsoldiers. They often augment Imperial forces now because of limited numbers, but that doesn't make them SAS with purity seals. You generally send in Astartes for one purpose: to hit something really, really hard with inhumanly-capable infantry who can survive the ordeal. And we only get a shadow of that on the tabletop IMO.

SemperMortis wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:As far as calling your suggestion about Shootas being a sidegrade at best? its because it is. I have been very adamant since the codex leaked that the new "Dakka" rule was a straight NERF to shootas and big shootas. Most of your proposed "Buffs" would be returning it to how it was last edition before some idiot at GW decided DAKKA! 3(2) was a better profile than Assault 2 and the old "Dakka Dakka Dakka" rule.

Yes, exactly. The opposite of a nerf is usually called a buff.
I don't care what the stats once were. I care about how the weapon concepts translate into stats now.

Cool, and I call nerfing an already crap weapon into the dirt to the point where shootas boyz almost never make an appearance even in local friendly tournaments is a dumb move, and "buffing" them back to basically where they were (worse when adjusted for points cost increases) isn't a buff. That would be like me taking bolters, reducing them to S3, increasing your cost of taking them by 2ppm, taking away new Rapid Fire rules for them and than, 1 edition later, "buffing" them back to S4. Not really a buff is it?

I get where you're coming from, but technically that's the definition of a buff (improving something relative to its existing state). And it certainly wasn't a nerf, as people kept claiming. Can you at least understand why I objected to being told I was biased/nerfing the weapon when the numbers suggested otherwise, and in a thread dedicated to improving the bolter?

SemperMortis wrote:*Ork vs Marine efficiency comparisons*

I get it, shoota Orks aren't great in terms of points efficiency. I'm not debating that. All I did was post my take on a shoota/big shoota that seemed representative lore-wise. And which came with some minor buffs overall.

Which is also exactly what I wanted to achieve with the bolter stats I posted.

As I've said many times before, points should be dictated by a model's capabilities, not vice versa. Things being incorrectly costed is a separate issue to them being misrepresented.

SemperMortis wrote:Also, I highlighted part of your reply to point out an issue, you ignored the BS of the firer...well that is kind of a problem because the reason why orkz need 4-6 shots per gun is the fact that we hit on 5s. So ignoring the biggest hindrance to Ork ranged firepower is a bit ridiculous. Dudeface made a comment about the shoota vs the bolter and said would I rather take the bolter, and the answer is YES if I get the current rules the Marine factions get with it, IE BS3, 2 shots at 24' AP-1 on turn 2, yes, I would take that in a heartbeat over Dakka 3(2) any day of the week. You can't ignore the BS of the most common user of the weapon because that is literally part of its inherent power.

It isn't, it's part of the wielder's power. E.g. AM sergeants can get bolters at BS4+, SM commanders can get the same weapon at BS2+ (I personally think Astartes bolters should be a step up from AM ones, but the point currently stands). And overarching things like doctrines, stratagems, etc aren't part of a weapon. They don't change a weapon's profile across all datasheets. They aren't immutable attributes that follow the weapon wherever (and whenever, turns-wise) it goes.

Mathematically, shootas aren't weak relative to bolters. Ork Boyz are weak relative to Tactical Marines, sure. Those are two different things. Co-related, and accounted for (ideally) by a model's combined points cost... but different. Space Marines can be better ranged combatants than Orks without bolters being better than (or even equal to) shootas.

SemperMortis wrote:If you really want to give Bolters -1AP you could make an argument for that, so long as you took away doctrines, and honestly Marines would need a points increase for a few things, like the hurricane bolter and the Stormbolter. But otherwise yeah go ahead, but lets not pretend like its much weaker than everything else, its pretty much smack dab in the middle.

That's all most pro-buff people in this thread have been arguing for this entire time I think: AP1 standard in lieu of AP-boosting doctrines, and ensuing points adjustments.

Admittedly I'm in the camp that thinks the bolter would still be a bit weak relative to lore and wants a little something extra, like the proposed Dmg 2... but I see no reason why that couldn't be accommodated by points increases too (which would, ironically, decrease their overall points-efficiency against Ork Boyz ).

Karol wrote:

And how many of my Ork gunz got a buff bud? That isn't a valid argument for why bolters need a buff.

I am not following you, what do bolters have to do with basic orks being bad? Why should A marine players of multiple factions want their weapons be brought down to the level of a unit that ork players only take because they have to? B since went does it make any sense to compare stuff downwards.
So yeah orks are bad, but why should any non ork player care. And as you said it yourself there are far more factions using bolters then orks.

So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.

But he is not wrong. Look what units are run by marines right now. A lot of them don't even get the -1AP buff in tactical doctrine. And again you have GK, 1ksons, DG, csm and SoB who all use bolters and do not have doctrines vs SW, DA,IF,RG, WS, DW and marines who do. That is hardly 90% At best it is two thirds.

1: you missed my point entirely. You pointed out that Marine weapons didn't get the buffs other factions did, IE D3+3 dmg on lascannon equivalents etc. I am pointing out that this isn't a valid reason to buff bolters, or if you truly believe it is than lets start buffing everyones weapons and really kick up the power creep so that before long we have Marines again complaining that even with AoC their marines aren't durable enough.

2: Yes, this is being pedantic. I pulled 90% out of thin air, besides dudeface and yourself i doubt anyone took the 90% literally, arguing that point instead of the main point isn't a valid argument, its a red herring argument at best.

But here we go again down the long and circuitous path of Marine players complaining about things they themselves were in favor of a few months prior.

I jokingly made a list of previous editions where Marine players complained about their durability in the game and were then given durability buffs the next edition just to then complain that those buffs nerfed them in the dmg output category, and then GW buffed their dmg output they complained about durability. The worst part is, I think Marines are about the only faction GW listens to in regards to their complaints. I can't wait for the next buff to increase basic bolter fire to AP-2 or AP-1 and defeats AoC just for Marines to then come back and say "My marines aren't durable enough anymore!" This has been going on for over a decade now and it is 100% cyclical.

Basic Marines with their bolters are more durable than in the last 5 editions at least. They are more capable of dealing dmg than the last 5 editions. Most other factions basic troops are woefully behind in at least one of those categories and yet we spend more time talking about how Space Marines need more buffs than how Aspect warriors need more attention, or daemon troops, or Chaos Marines etc.

SemperMortis wrote:

Karol wrote:

And how many of my Ork gunz got a buff bud? That isn't a valid argument for why bolters need a buff.

I am not following you, what do bolters have to do with basic orks being bad? Why should A marine players of multiple factions want their weapons be brought down to the level of a unit that ork players only take because they have to? B since went does it make any sense to compare stuff downwards.
So yeah orks are bad, but why should any non ork player care. And as you said it yourself there are far more factions using bolters then orks.

So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.

But he is not wrong. Look what units are run by marines right now. A lot of them don't even get the -1AP buff in tactical doctrine. And again you have GK, 1ksons, DG, csm and SoB who all use bolters and do not have doctrines vs SW, DA,IF,RG, WS, DW and marines who do. That is hardly 90% At best it is two thirds.

1: you missed my point entirely. You pointed out that Marine weapons didn't get the buffs other factions did, IE D3+3 dmg on lascannon equivalents etc. I am pointing out that this isn't a valid reason to buff bolters, or if you truly believe it is than lets start buffing everyones weapons and really kick up the power creep so that before long we have Marines again complaining that even with AoC their marines aren't durable enough.

2: Yes, this is being pedantic. I pulled 90% out of thin air, besides dudeface and yourself i doubt anyone took the 90% literally, arguing that point instead of the main point isn't a valid argument, its a red herring argument at best.

But here we go again down the long and circuitous path of Marine players complaining about things they themselves were in favor of a few months prior.

I jokingly made a list of previous editions where Marine players complained about their durability in the game and were then given durability buffs the next edition just to then complain that those buffs nerfed them in the dmg output category, and then GW buffed their dmg output they complained about durability. The worst part is, I think Marines are about the only faction GW listens to in regards to their complaints. I can't wait for the next buff to increase basic bolter fire to AP-2 or AP-1 and defeats AoC just for Marines to then come back and say "My marines aren't durable enough anymore!" This has been going on for over a decade now and it is 100% cyclical.

Basic Marines with their bolters are more durable than in the last 5 editions at least. They are more capable of dealing dmg than the last 5 editions. Most other factions basic troops are woefully behind in at least one of those categories and yet we spend more time talking about how Space Marines need more buffs than how Aspect warriors need more attention, or daemon troops, or Chaos Marines etc.

You've just spent however many posts and pages telling me I'm wrong for wanting quality of life improvements and buffs for my chaos marines because you were too pig headed to consider them a separate army.

Dudeface.....buffing chaos Marines DOES NOT mean buffing bolters.

Why are Marine bolters better than chaos bolters? Because they have a special rule or two. As opposed to being stupid and buffing EVERY bolter in the game, adjust the faction specific rules for those factions which need help....its almost like your enjoy being obtuse.

For a community that loves gaking on GW, we are prone to making the same mistakes and wanting generalized changes rather than focused ones.

SemperMortis wrote:
Dudeface.....buffing chaos Marines DOES NOT mean buffing bolters.

Why are Marine bolters better than chaos bolters? Because they have a special rule or two. As opposed to being stupid and buffing EVERY bolter in the game, adjust the faction specific rules for those factions which need help....its almost like your enjoy being obtuse.

Maybe remove their special rules given that all bolters need buffing and bake them into the weapon?

its almost like your enjoy being obtuse.

I'd add you're in a thread proposing the bolter as a whole is too weak, what do you expect, just make it better for some people and not others?

The question surely is "what are you trying to achieve".

Because its all very well saying "in my head cannon the boltgun is the greatest weapon in the universe" (citation needed) - but in practice for the health of the game Marines shouldn't be out-shooting units which are considerably softer and/or less punchy for their points.

Now it may upset you that Marines get outshot by fire warriors, skitarii & guardians - while getting out punched by boyz (Semper: I wish) but that's sort of how a game has to be. If you don't like that, go play 30k.

I definitely agree, marines are definitely much more paying for the (exceptionally more useful) two wounds of t4 3+ save (ignoring an ap).

Tyel wrote:
The question surely is "what are you trying to achieve".

Because its all very well saying "in my head cannon the boltgun is the greatest weapon in the universe" (citation needed) - but in practice for the health of the game Marines shouldn't be out-shooting units which are considerably softer and/or less punchy for their points.

Now it may upset you that Marines get outshot by fire warriors, skitarii & guardians - while getting out punched by boyz (Semper: I wish) but that's sort of how a game has to be. If you don't like that, go play 30k.

If the design paradigm for anything in power armour is "you are more survivable point for point then anything equivalent but a bit pillow fisted" that's cool, but it's not the status quo in the setting of the game necessarily, I'm not advocating that they become movie marines, but I'd be more than comfy with fewer but better bodies on the table.

I don't think anyone wants 30" Rapidfire 3 S5 Ap-2 D2 bolters or anything that daft, but currently when the bolt rifle and auto bolter exist the humble boltgun is almost entirely redundant in loyalist armies. Chaos marines and sisters don't get a choice, but they also don't get some/all the perks that the worst loyalist marine bolter has access to either so it would make sense to drag them up. If you got rid of combat doctrines for example and baked ap-1 onto a bolter, it's a small buff for loyalists who likely wouldn't use it still, but a big shot in the arm for chaos marines and sisters.

Maybe instead of buffing bolters we should talk about buffing lascannons/missile launchers/autocannons/etc.

That seems a bigger pressing need than buffing bolters.

 Tyran wrote:
Maybe instead of buffing bolters we should talk about buffing lascannons/missile launchers/autocannons/etc.

That seems a bigger pressing need than buffing bolters.

Missiles are fine IMO, but yeah, lascannons still being D6 is absolutely daft.

The thing is I think you could give bolters AP-1 and it wouldn't make the units holding them any more desirable to include them in your army.

Now you might say "I don't care, it would still help that 1~ near obligatory CSM/Sister squad you take to be CP efficient" but it seems an odd thing to be overly concerned with.

Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Points value represents the value on the tabletop, not the value in the setting itself. The tabletop interactions are pretty superficial, being reduced roughly down to Damage In/Out. Much of a Marine's actual value is either not well represented through the game mechanics (morale), or just not within the scope of the game (speed of deployment/combat endurance).

I get what you're saying, but their tabletop value should be much higher regardless. Attributes like strength, speed, skill, constitution, awareness, psychology, etc. are all represented to some extent on the tabletop, as are weaponry, armor, tactics... almost all of which are toned down for Marines.

A boltgun is just one aspect of this (and it could be argued that the suggestions in this thread are compromises, and that a fluffy bolter would be even more powerful). I can only imagine the ire if we went into everything else.

But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.

Yes, but this is the marine durability/lethality treadmill thread. It won't end in our lifetimes

 Tyran wrote:
Maybe instead of buffing bolters we should talk about buffing lascannons/missile launchers/autocannons/etc.

That seems a bigger pressing need than buffing bolters.

You get my vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Points value represents the value on the tabletop, not the value in the setting itself. The tabletop interactions are pretty superficial, being reduced roughly down to Damage In/Out. Much of a Marine's actual value is either not well represented through the game mechanics (morale), or just not within the scope of the game (speed of deployment/combat endurance).

I get what you're saying, but their tabletop value should be much higher regardless. Attributes like strength, speed, skill, constitution, awareness, psychology, etc. are all represented to some extent on the tabletop, as are weaponry, armor, tactics... almost all of which are toned down for Marines.

A boltgun is just one aspect of this (and it could be argued that the suggestions in this thread are compromises, and that a fluffy bolter would be even more powerful). I can only imagine the ire if we went into everything else.

But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.

Do they though? 7 tac marines in tac doctrine kill 2 Dire Avengers at 24". The remaining 8 (dual on the exarch since its free) move up and do 5 wounds. Seems a fairly even to me?

7 Tac Marines get 14 shots, 9.33 hits, 6.22 wounds and in Tac doctrine that is 4.14 dead Dire Avengers....how did you get 2?

Btw, that is 126pts of Tac Marines killing just shy of 50pts of Dire Avengers.

I guess he forgot that Marines have bolter discipline.

 Tyran wrote:
I guess he forgot that Marines have bolter discipline.

What kind of a comperation is it though. Who runs 7 or any tacticals at all. DA can at least be maybe run in some lists, if someone really wants to go easy on someone else or use older models. But no space marine player takes tacticals. If something with bolters is running around, then it is the infiltration dudes, because the regular intercessors, more often then not run armed with auto bolters, and those aren't rapid fire.

SemperMortis wrote:
7 Tac Marines get 14 shots, 9.33 hits, 6.22 wounds and in Tac doctrine that is 4.14 dead Dire Avengers....how did you get 2?

Btw, that is 126pts of Tac Marines killing just shy of 50pts of Dire Avengers.

I put the armour save in back to front so they saved on a 3+ instead of a 5+, my bad!

 Insectum7 wrote:

But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.

Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.

Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.

Bolters were a bad weapons, before the AoC change, when comparing to other armies basic weapons.

Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.

I wasn't expecting blatant HFY nonsense as a justification.

... ok I'm lying, I was expecting that, I just wasn't expecting someone to actually say it.

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.

Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.

Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.

Bolters were a bad weapons, before the AoC change, when comparing to other armies basic weapons.

Even ignoring that Orks are hardier, Eldar are faster, Necrons more advanced...

What are Custodes, if Marines are peak trans human?

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.

Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.

^Only if you're unaware of the long degradation of xenos units over time. And peak human doesn't mean peak-of-all-other-species. It just means peak human.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I guess he forgot that Marines have bolter discipline.

What kind of a comperation is it though. Who runs 7 or any tacticals at all. . .

I do. Lots of people might. Anyone who hasn't bought into Primaris, and there are quite a few of us.

Karol wrote:

Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.

Except in 40k, humans aren't supposed to be "supreme" for any reason other than societal inertia. The Imperium is a society of degenerate, ignorant, baby-murdering fascists.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:

Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.

Except in 40k, humans aren't supposed to be "supreme" for any reason other than societal inertia. The Imperium is a society of degenerate, ignorant, baby-murdering fascists.

This. We *suck* and that's the point, to draw the attention of the viewer to how we can be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
I wasn't expecting blatant HFY nonsense as a justification.

... ok I'm lying, I was expecting that, I just wasn't expecting someone to actually say it.

Naw, it's the same guys every time.

Karol wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I guess he forgot that Marines have bolter discipline.

What kind of a comperation is it though. Who runs 7 or any tacticals at all. DA can at least be maybe run in some lists, if someone really wants to go easy on someone else or use older models. But no space marine player takes tacticals. If something with bolters is running around, then it is the infiltration dudes, because the regular intercessors, more often then not run armed with auto bolters, and those aren't rapid fire.

I would assume 7 because a tactical squad generally has 7 marines with boltguns (plus a heavy weapon, special weapon and sergeant with a pistol).

Catulle wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:

Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.

Except in 40k, humans aren't supposed to be "supreme" for any reason other than societal inertia. The Imperium is a society of degenerate, ignorant, baby-murdering fascists.

This. We *suck* and that's the point, to draw the attention of the viewer to how we can be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
I wasn't expecting blatant HFY nonsense as a justification.

... ok I'm lying, I was expecting that, I just wasn't expecting someone to actually say it.

Naw, it's the same guys every time.

40k doesn't in any way have a 'how we can be better' message. Anything that ISN'T just straight up HFY, revels in the misery of the setting. Much to the audiences delight btw.

It's essentially a 20th century sanitized version of watching people getting eaten by lions in the coliseums. To the point where if anything is even a little bit positive or happy, the fandom collective loses their minds.