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.

Space Marine bloat has less do with the special chapters and more to do with the units that have the same role with slight variations on how they accomplish them:

Scouts
Infiltrators
Incursors
Reivers

Assault Intercessors
Assault Marines
Vanguard Veterans

I'm sure I could come up with at least a dozen examples of 3+ Space Marine units that do pretty much the same thing in very similar ways.

 vict0988 wrote:

If the median game ends turn 3 (or if nothing ever dies), if faction and list diversity narrows over time. Ideally, games are decided by a variety of factors, having a list that is built to take advantage of a weakness in the enemy list, putting Terminators on the table instead of into DS, getting a lucky shooting phase turn 2, deciding not to charge turn 4, saving a CP for both a run move and a morale test in the last turn. But when games can be boiled down to "Andrew brought list A and Buster brought list B so the game was a foregone conclusion because list B is strictly worse than list A". In a game with perfect imbalance you might find out after a few months that list B isn't strictly worse, it needs to be played differently but then it's really strong against list C even if the matchup against list A is still rather poor but the option to take list B is opening up based on new findings about the game. The quickest narrowing you can get is when an option is strictly worse, like the Space Marine grav gun is strictly worse than the grav cannon if I recall correctly, so instantly when someone reads those two profiles and realises they're competing at 0 pts in the Tactical Squad the list options have narrowed by 2, because you can't take a boltgun and you can't take a gravgun, those aren't options you have to think about. If a grav gun was 1 pt and a grav cannon was 2 pts you'd have close to the same effect or if the grav gun was 20 pts and the grav cannon was 40 pts the close GW can get to balance the more opportunities open up.

What do you mean by "perfect imbalance"? Are you referencing the Extra Credits video? That's not really a credible game design source...

Karol wrote:

But what kind of a bloat is it really?

Bloat is widening of roster / options without adding any depth of choice.

Tacticals, Intercessors, Heavy Intercessors, Incursors, and.. Infiltrators(I can't remember the name?) all fulfill the niche of "fighty line troop with bolters". They could be paired down to a single unit entry with options, or two unit entries with options if you really want to separate tacticals and intercessors. Assault Intercessors could also just be an option for intercessors, same with Reivers.

Like wise, the generic space marine HQ's could be condensed into 10(ish) options. Captain, Lieutenant, Chaplain, Librarian, Tech Marine, and then all of those repeated for the Primaris variations. Real efficiency would just be having generic sheets with the Primaris iteration being an upgrade; maybe it costs 15 points to get an extra wound and attack or something.

This is on contrast to the Eldar melee units you mentioned. Striking Scorpions are high volume of low quality attacks. Banshees are traditionally a smaller volume of higher quality attacks (power weapons) with charge-suppression elements. This cleanly divides the scorpions into being bullies meant to kill hordes of weaker enemies / prey on units which do not want to be in combat, where as banshees are meant to tackle particularly tough enemy units which have innate fightiness; one is a back line bully / horde clearer and the other is an anti heavy armor (meq) CC specialist unit.

So while the Eldar units are similar in that they're both melee and eldar they have very different roles on the table top. Where as the "bolter bois" mentioned all have the same role of park-and-shoot with maybe a counter charge if someone gets too close and you can finish them off. That heavy intercessors are +1 wound and +1 strength does not justify an entirely different entry, nor does incursors (or w/e, I literally do not care enough to remember) do not need to exist purely for the purpose of having a mine and a medic. Especially when those said incursors are functionally interchangable with intercessors in their primary focus of bolter bois, what with ap 1 and ignores cover being different routes to the same goal.

Hecaton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If the median game ends turn 3 (or if nothing ever dies), if faction and list diversity narrows over time. Ideally, games are decided by a variety of factors, having a list that is built to take advantage of a weakness in the enemy list, putting Terminators on the table instead of into DS, getting a lucky shooting phase turn 2, deciding not to charge turn 4, saving a CP for both a run move and a morale test in the last turn. But when games can be boiled down to "Andrew brought list A and Buster brought list B so the game was a foregone conclusion because list B is strictly worse than list A". In a game with perfect imbalance you might find out after a few months that list B isn't strictly worse, it needs to be played differently but then it's really strong against list C even if the matchup against list A is still rather poor but the option to take list B is opening up based on new findings about the game. The quickest narrowing you can get is when an option is strictly worse, like the Space Marine grav gun is strictly worse than the grav cannon if I recall correctly, so instantly when someone reads those two profiles and realises they're competing at 0 pts in the Tactical Squad the list options have narrowed by 2, because you can't take a boltgun and you can't take a gravgun, those aren't options you have to think about. If a grav gun was 1 pt and a grav cannon was 2 pts you'd have close to the same effect or if the grav gun was 20 pts and the grav cannon was 40 pts the close GW can get to balance the more opportunities open up.

What do you mean by "perfect imbalance"? Are you referencing the Extra Credits video? That's not really a credible game design source...

Yes. I've seen people post the book written by GW's former designer as a credible game design source, the book claimed that the best you could do in terms of balance was play games with as many different people as possible and do the dartboard method to balance things, efficiency math or structured playtesting was not. The explanation of how pts calculators work and should be created was atrocious as well, don't believe that something has to be published and have a paywall for it to be good. I think perfect imbalance is a great term as it quickly gets people off the stupid idea that they should be able to beat "oops all melta" with "oops all tanks", everything has a counter and the meta is evolving and self-regulating. Citing 50-dollar textbooks or papers in game design journals in a forum argument would be very stupid I believe as nobody would be willing to purchase the books or papers. Now if you have a problem with the term perfect imbalance or the Extra Credits video we could talk about it here or elsewhere depending on how relevant you think it is to the thread. I don't know what would make you think Extra Credits is bad enough that anything they say should be immediately dismissed. If the idea has an older original term I'd be willing to use that instead.

I checked a Reddit thread with some critiques of the video. Neither Chess nor Starcraft were solved before AI, so games can indeed be balanced enough that they can't simply be solved by taking Castellan and Loyal 32, tonnes of factions not having counters to the list and there being no good reason to take a Valiant over a Castellan or taking SM Tactical Squads instead of IG Infantry Squads. If you have some good free resources please share.

 vict0988 wrote:

Yes. I've seen people post the book written by GW's former designer as a credible game design source, the book claimed that the best you could do in terms of balance was play games with as many different people as possible and do the dartboard method to balance things, efficiency math or structured playtesting was not. The explanation of how pts calculators work and should be created was atrocious as well, don't believe that something has to be published and have a paywall for it to be good. I think perfect imbalance is a great term as it quickly gets people off the stupid idea that they should be able to beat "oops all melta" with "oops all tanks", everything has a counter and the meta is evolving and self-regulating. Citing 50-dollar textbooks or papers in game design journals in a forum argument would be very stupid I believe as nobody would be willing to purchase the books or papers. Now if you have a problem with the term perfect imbalance or the Extra Credits video we could talk about it here or elsewhere depending on how relevant you think it is to the thread. I don't know what would make you think Extra Credits is bad enough that anything they say should be immediately dismissed. If the idea has an older original term I'd be willing to use that instead.

I checked a Reddit thread with some critiques of the video. Neither Chess nor Starcraft were solved before AI, so games can indeed be balanced enough that they can't simply be solved by taking Castellan and Loyal 32, tonnes of factions not having counters to the list and there being no good reason to take a Valiant over a Castellan or taking SM Tactical Squads instead of IG Infantry Squads. If you have some good free resources please share.

That "Perfect Imbalance" video doesn't really say anything you're saying here, and is frequently cited by anti-balance types.

 alextroy wrote:
Space Marine bloat has less do with the special chapters and more to do with the units that have the same role with slight variations on how they accomplish them:

IMO it's both. The's bloat from multiple redundant datasheets, there's also bloat from GW insisting that each color you can paint your space marines needs to be a separate army with its own special rules and special units. Consolidating everything back into a single codex and treating chapters no differently from regiments/septs/hive fleets/etc would do a lot to reduce the bloat problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
Neither Chess nor Starcraft were solved before AI

Not true. Chess may not have been "solved" in the strictest literal sense of always knowing the single optimal play at all times until processing power (not AI) reached a point where it could calculate the entire set of possibilities but we already knew how to get there. Chess had been reduced to known move sequences being played against each other, with far more emphasis on memorizing and correctly executing the known sequences than strategy. And we knew how to evaluate game states and determine the optimal play, it just required holding too many things in memory for a human to do it for a complete game. All chess "AI" did was apply the known algorithms using computer hardware that was capable of executing the full analysis within a reasonable amount of time.

I don't know if Starcraft is exactly the same since it's a terrible game and I never played it beyond a very casual level but from what I've seen about "competitive" play it was largely the same thing. It may not have been 100% solved but any high-level player knew the optimal openings and the optimal counters and success at a competitive level had more to do with clicks per second and avoiding mistakes. AI may have been applied to bring it to 100% at some point but that probably had more to do with an AI having unlimited clicks per second and never accidentally pressing the wrong button than any real strategy analysis.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Space Marine bloat has less do with the special chapters and more to do with the units that have the same role with slight variations on how they accomplish them:

IMO it's both. The's bloat from multiple redundant datasheets, there's also bloat from GW insisting that each color you can paint your space marines needs to be a separate army with its own special rules and special units. Consolidating everything back into a single codex and treating chapters no differently from regiments/septs/hive fleets/etc would do a lot to reduce the bloat problem.

Eh I don't think that would work now for Space Marines. Too many chapters have unique models, unique parts (even if its just shoulderpads) and more.

Bloodangels are a separate army; if that means they are all in one codex with subchapters or in their own codex doesn't really matter. Yes it means BA and Ultramarines iwll share a lot of the same models as their core; but they will each have hteir own special units dotted around that core. Personally I'm totally fine with that.


I think the bloat marines have is a big issue because Primaris, which were clearly just going to be the new remodelled marines, were smashed into the army alongside. So of course when you baiscally copy-cat the roster you end up with a LOT of duplication of themes and ideas and stats and slots.

 Overread wrote:
Too many chapters have unique models

Their uniqueness isn't necessary. Most of them are just "standard core unit with special snowflake rules" and can be used to represent the core unit, and stuff like the awful aircraft variants can be taken out back and shot.

And whether or not GW is willing to fix the problem it's still where a lot of the bloat comes from. Most of the unique stuff only exists because GW insisted on treating marine sub-factions differently from every non-marine faction and inventing a bunch of pointless extra units to justify having a separate codex.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Too many chapters have unique models

Their uniqueness isn't necessary. Most of them are just "standard core unit with special snowflake rules" and can be used to represent the core unit, and stuff like the awful aircraft variants can be taken out back and shot.

And whether or not GW is willing to fix the problem it's still where a lot of the bloat comes from. Most of the unique stuff only exists because GW insisted on treating marine sub-factions differently from every non-marine faction and inventing a bunch of pointless extra units to justify having a separate codex.

Thing is GW went down the path that they were and has created those models for those sub-armies. Plus Spacemarines DO outsell every other army by a significant margin over the long term. Heck you can even argue that its a good thing that there are several subarmies so that there IS some visual and thematic variety with Space Marines so that every other battle isn't just pure Ultramarine Spacemarines.

In my view sub-army models weren't a problem except during the edition were GW let you freely take detachments from allied armies and we had a bit of a mania period where everyone was taking sub-armies so that the CC army was the CC units; the ranged subarmy was the ranged bonus ones etc...

 Overread wrote:
Plus Spacemarines DO outsell every other army by a significant margin over the long term.

But is that cause or effect? Is that because there's something inherently more desirable about marines, or is it because GW gives marines a far disproportionate share of the attention? They have a near-monopoly on being the face of the setting and are always portrayed as the protagonists when they appear, with the other side of the battle being NPCs to be slaughtered for the glory of the marines. And their rules and models always have the highest priority for updates, meaning you never have to fear long periods of neglect and the worst case scenario is you have to use a different chapter's rules for a while to stay competitive.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Plus Spacemarines DO outsell every other army by a significant margin over the long term.

But is that cause or effect? Is that because there's something inherently more desirable about marines, or is it because GW gives marines a far disproportionate share of the attention? They have a near-monopoly on being the face of the setting and are always portrayed as the protagonists when they appear, with the other side of the battle being NPCs to be slaughtered for the glory of the marines. And their rules and models always have the highest priority for updates, meaning you never have to fear long periods of neglect and the worst case scenario is you have to use a different chapter's rules for a while to stay competitive.

They're also given the moral pass, too, like it's ok when *they* commit genocide, but bad when CSM do it.

There is a lot of difference between:

A) Massacres Civilians to Open a Hole into the Warp and summon an army of daemons into real space.
B) Massacres Civilians to prevent them from unwitting opening a Hole into the Warp allowing an army of daemons to enter real space.

Might not make a difference to the civilians getting massacres, but motives do matter.

Starcraft has 3 balanced factions, not 1. Each faction has multiple openings, not 1. Every Chess game does not open the same way, every time and Chess computers figured out new ways to strategize during the game. If the right move was to always use queen rockade to switch all your pawns with queens by paying a rook and a knight then it would be a different story. League of Legends is an example from the video, if tanks are strong in the League of Legends meta then the meta will evolve to include more anti-tank champions, that change in the meta makes tanks less powerful and assassins more powerful. If tanks are waaay too powerful in League of Legends then picking anti-tank champions will be worse than just picking tank champions to beat them, like in 40k when Castellans were the answer to Castellans.

Just like Chess has the troll opening bong cloud you could make a deliberately bad list, but factions should not have only bad lists.

 alextroy wrote:
There is a lot of difference between:

A) Massacres Civilians to Open a Hole into the Warp and summon an army of daemons into real space.
B) Massacres Civilians to prevent them from unwitting opening a Hole into the Warp allowing an army of daemons to enter real space.

Might not make a difference to the civilians getting massacres, but motives do matter.

Well when you could just tell the unwitting humans to stop it makes you an donkey-cave.

 Overread wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Space Marine bloat has less do with the special chapters and more to do with the units that have the same role with slight variations on how they accomplish them:

IMO it's both. The's bloat from multiple redundant datasheets, there's also bloat from GW insisting that each color you can paint your space marines needs to be a separate army with its own special rules and special units. Consolidating everything back into a single codex and treating chapters no differently from regiments/septs/hive fleets/etc would do a lot to reduce the bloat problem.

Eh I don't think that would work now for Space Marines. Too many chapters have unique models, unique parts (even if its just shoulderpads) and more.

Bloodangels are a separate army; if that means they are all in one codex with subchapters or in their own codex doesn't really matter. Yes it means BA and Ultramarines iwll share a lot of the same models as their core; but they will each have hteir own special units dotted around that core. Personally I'm totally fine with that.


I think the bloat marines have is a big issue because Primaris, which were clearly just going to be the new remodelled marines, were smashed into the army alongside. So of course when you baiscally copy-cat the roster you end up with a LOT of duplication of themes and ideas and stats and slots.

Well, even Primaris alone have a bloat and redundant unit problem. Why exactly are there 3 Phobos line infantry units that look practically identical and all basically do the same thing again?

 Bosskelot wrote:

Well, even Primaris alone have a bloat and redundant unit problem. Why exactly are there 3 Phobos line infantry units that look practically identical and all basically do the same thing again?

Yeah, honestly it's pretty crazy. I wonder how that discussion goes at GW HQ.

Hecaton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Well, even Primaris alone have a bloat and redundant unit problem. Why exactly are there 3 Phobos line infantry units that look practically identical and all basically do the same thing again?

Yeah, honestly it's pretty crazy. I wonder how that discussion goes at GW HQ.

Nonsensically?

Hecaton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Well, even Primaris alone have a bloat and redundant unit problem. Why exactly are there 3 Phobos line infantry units that look practically identical and all basically do the same thing again?

Yeah, honestly it's pretty crazy. I wonder how that discussion goes at GW HQ.

Probably like this,

“Sell more marines”
“Roger that!”


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
There is a lot of difference between:

A) Massacres Civilians to Open a Hole into the Warp and summon an army of daemons into real space.
B) Massacres Civilians to prevent them from unwitting opening a Hole into the Warp allowing an army of daemons to enter real space.

Might not make a difference to the civilians getting massacres, but motives do matter.

Not really when genocide is happening. The side doing the genocide will always have a valid reason in their heads. It will never seem valid to outsiders.

Can you think of one real world example where genocide was justifiable?

And the imperium will do it gw piece not just on the people who could have allowed a warp portal to open but on anyone who may have been anywhere near it but completely unaware. “Just in case”.

The fact that the imperium uses servitors as a punishment is abhorrent.

Chaos is no better though. And it’s certainly not honest. But I think that’s a different thread.

Hecaton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Well, even Primaris alone have a bloat and redundant unit problem. Why exactly are there 3 Phobos line infantry units that look practically identical and all basically do the same thing again?

Yeah, honestly it's pretty crazy. I wonder how that discussion goes at GW HQ.

as far as we know the process is the following:

deciding on a new model line based on specific art/ideas, taking the new model line to the fluff guys for a story and master models to the painters, last point is to get the models and the fluff to a rules writer and let them write them into the Codex based on options from the kit and the fluff that is provided

so someone thinking of "this looks cool" it is produced and adds another 3 units doing the very same stuff to a faction that would actually need something different
if the new line sells good enough or better, it is followed by other kits with that design, if not it is dropped and replaced by something else but kept within the rules as long as there is stock to sell

we have seen that with the Primaris line were different armour designs and concepts were released, some followed up, others were dropped (like we get old Terminator design for Primaris back instead of keeping the new heavy Armour design)

 alextroy wrote:
Space Marine bloat has less do with the special chapters and more to do with the units that have the same role with slight variations on how they accomplish them:

Scouts
Infiltrators
Incursors
Reivers

Assault Intercessors
Assault Marines
Vanguard Veterans

I'm sure I could come up with at least a dozen examples of 3+ Space Marine units that do pretty much the same thing in very similar ways.

Tank/Speeder that we gave a different name because it has a slightly different main/secondary gun combo...

 kodos wrote:
deciding on a new model line based on specific art/ideas, taking the new model line to the fluff guys for a story and master models to the painters, last point is to get the models and the fluff to a rules writer and let them write them into the Codex based on options from the kit and the fluff that is provided

That's pretty horrifying to think about, that someone at GW actually thought those idiotic missile primaris marines were a good aesthetic choice. I'd assumed they had to be designed rules-first, with some poor sculptor stuck with the job of trying to turn the rules into something that doesn't look like complete .

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Space Marine bloat has less do with the special chapters and more to do with the units that have the same role with slight variations on how they accomplish them:

Scouts
Infiltrators
Incursors
Reivers

Assault Intercessors
Assault Marines
Vanguard Veterans

I'm sure I could come up with at least a dozen examples of 3+ Space Marine units that do pretty much the same thing in very similar ways.

Tank/Speeder that we gave a different name because it has a slightly different main/secondary gun combo...

They way units are costed now that's a good thing, otherwise you'd have gladiator armed with, X, or Y, or Z. VVV points for any combo.

Not to say that can't or shouldn't change but as of today is actually a small help when you compare it to the wraithlord problem.

Not defending the rules etc, but using the metric of win rate when all army rosters are different isn’t very scientific to give an impression on army strength

What I mean as an example, you can make a completely terrible death guard army list, a mediocre one or a semi decent one.

Each will effect your win rate, the thing I mostly see is people wanting unique or boss units which are often a waste of points and not even worth fielding.

I think most factions have a workable meta within them and often come with a play-style which works best for them, i once played an ork player who’s tactics were holding back and shooting… his army was built around that mentality too which is always gonna be a loss, he came last in that tournament and blamed the rules...

Then there is victory points and the player to swing it marginally, some players are bloodthirsty and not focused on objectives which can work to your advantage even if you’re the underdog.

And there is also 500point wonder armies which do well but in big point battles are useless etc.
But sometimes tournaments can be 500pts or 1000pts etc

The armies at the top of the list are somewhat easier because it don’t matter what units you pick most of them will work, the armies at the bottom of the list are more… tactical and you need to use your noggin more, I know it’s early but I’ve always found a way to make my army work in updates.

The meta army will change each rule set anyway, incentive for people to switch and buy more models, paints etc

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 kodos wrote:
deciding on a new model line based on specific art/ideas, taking the new model line to the fluff guys for a story and master models to the painters, last point is to get the models and the fluff to a rules writer and let them write them into the Codex based on options from the kit and the fluff that is provided

That's pretty horrifying to think about, that someone at GW actually thought those idiotic missile primaris marines were a good aesthetic choice. I'd assumed they had to be designed rules-first, with some poor sculptor stuck with the job of trying to turn the rules into something that doesn't look like complete .

What’s even crazier is everyone agrees they look ugly as sin, when they first came out I was going to buy the big box and sell those off but they were so ugly you couldn’t even get much over £10 a sprue for them.

10th dropped and all of a sudden they are wildly popular, I guess for rules reasons but don’t know because I don’t follow the “meta” and I got the box and the still ugly as models now sold for £35 a sprue (5 models). So chasing the meta is expensive and the comp types don’t care how ugly the models are as long as they are good.

Andykp wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There is a lot of difference between:

A) Massacres Civilians to Open a Hole into the Warp and summon an army of daemons into real space.
B) Massacres Civilians to prevent them from unwitting opening a Hole into the Warp allowing an army of daemons to enter real space.

Might not make a difference to the civilians getting massacres, but motives do matter.

Not really when genocide is happening. The side doing the genocide will always have a valid reason in their heads. It will never seem valid to outsiders.

Can you think of one real world example where genocide was justifiable?

And the imperium will do it gw piece not just on the people who could have allowed a warp portal to open but on anyone who may have been anywhere near it but completely unaware. “Just in case”.

The fact that the imperium uses servitors as a punishment is abhorrent.

Chaos is no better though. And it’s certainly not honest. But I think that’s a different thread.

This is part of the absurdity of Warhammer 40,000. There is no justifiable reason in the real world for genocide, forced extinction, or the other forms of indiscriminate slaughter that the forces in 40K engage in. However, in the context of their world these reasons are very reasonable.

The Tyranids are an implacable force bent on the destruction of all before them. They must be destroyed at all cost.

If allowed to spread too far into a planet's population Genestealer Cults will turn the world into a beacon to draw the Tryanids into a sector. They must be stopped at all cost.

If allowed to mass, Orks will go on a destructive rampage that will destroy everything they encounter in search of a good scrap. They must be stamped out whenever possible.

If allowed to gain critical mass, Chaos cults will destroy the planet they are on by opening ever growing portals into the warp. Better the entire world die than this be allowed to happen.

These are just a few examples of the primal forces of destruction that the Imperium of Man deals with. There can be no quarter given. No negotiations made. If you don't destroy them first, they will certainly destroy you because "in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

I think the background is part of the appeal, its not black v white, its black v even blacker, v blacker yet shouting Waaargh, v yet darker still

there are no good guys, just varying levels of "oh gods thats horrible"

and even worse, some people in brightly coloured leg warmers and 1980's style clothing

You're making a good point. When we say the imperium is evil, it is because of what it inflicts on itself: hate, denouncing, obscurantism, corruption, authoritarian regime despotism, intolerance toward other non imperium human factions, even mass murder on them...

But as far as dealing with other factions is concerned, well, best analogy I could find is put a hornet's nest in your bedroom and we'll see if you don't terminate it or have it moved away while I'm pretty sure this is not what the hornets wish because if they built there in the first place that must suit them.

40k is that but the nest is not only in your bedroom, it is also everywhere outside and whenever you make a move you angry some of the nests and you better be ready.

And hopefully it is so, an all human version of 40k would be to much and become revulsing at that point.

 alextroy wrote:
This is part of the absurdity of Warhammer 40,000. There is no justifiable reason in the real world for genocide, forced extinction, or the other forms of indiscriminate slaughter that the forces in 40K engage in. However, in the context of their world these reasons are very reasonable.

The Tyranids are an implacable force bent on the destruction of all before them. They must be destroyed at all cost.

If allowed to spread too far into a planet's population Genestealer Cults will turn the world into a beacon to draw the Tryanids into a sector. They must be stopped at all cost.

If allowed to mass, Orks will go on a destructive rampage that will destroy everything they encounter in search of a good scrap. They must be stamped out whenever possible.

If allowed to gain critical mass, Chaos cults will destroy the planet they are on by opening ever growing portals into the warp. Better the entire world die than this be allowed to happen.

These are just a few examples of the primal forces of destruction that the Imperium of Man deals with. There can be no quarter given. No negotiations made. If you don't destroy them first, they will certainly destroy you because "in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

See, this is why I don't actually like the way the lore is evolving.

Tyranids, sure - they can't be negotiated or reasoned with (but we can wait them out, because without FTL the entire span of human existence as of 40k could have passed before the Tyranids ate ~10 star systems...)

But GSC? Surely there are countermeasures beyond "genocide". It's a biological/physiological process, not incomprehensible magic. The imperium is the architect of its own misery in this regard, and I am not sure that a comprehensive healthcare and genecare programme would be that much more expensive than weekly genocides...

Orks, again, are aliens. War against them is inevitable because of their nature.

Chaos cultists are... meh. I think they are misguided, but I think lots of people are misguided IRL and don't deserve genocide. If they want to open Warp portals, go ahead - the only people they are hurting are themselves and anyone on their planet. But the destruction the imperium brings is just as bad for themselves and anyone on their planet... Hell, just look at Armageddon!
"We must kill the chaos invasion!"
"Why?"
"For the other humans"
*Twelve seconds later*
"Ok we must kill the other humans now as per protocol."

Yea, the imperium really is a pretty gak place full of pretty gak people, and could be less gakky except that it's a reactionary authoritarian theocracy and so things like "maybe let's fight the genestealer plague like the way we fought that other disease in 0020.M2, instead of fighting it like it can be killed with bullets"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
This is part of the absurdity of Warhammer 40,000. There is no justifiable reason in the real world for genocide, forced extinction, or the other forms of indiscriminate slaughter that the forces in 40K engage in. However, in the context of their world these reasons are very reasonable.

The Tyranids are an implacable force bent on the destruction of all before them. They must be destroyed at all cost.

If allowed to spread too far into a planet's population Genestealer Cults will turn the world into a beacon to draw the Tryanids into a sector. They must be stopped at all cost.

If allowed to mass, Orks will go on a destructive rampage that will destroy everything they encounter in search of a good scrap. They must be stamped out whenever possible.

If allowed to gain critical mass, Chaos cults will destroy the planet they are on by opening ever growing portals into the warp. Better the entire world die than this be allowed to happen.

These are just a few examples of the primal forces of destruction that the Imperium of Man deals with. There can be no quarter given. No negotiations made. If you don't destroy them first, they will certainly destroy you because "in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

See, this is why I don't actually like the way the lore is evolving.

Tyranids, sure - they can't be negotiated or reasoned with (but we can wait them out, because without FTL the entire span of human existence as of 40k could have passed before the Tyranids ate ~10 star systems...)

But GSC? Surely there are countermeasures beyond "genocide". It's a biological/physiological process, not incomprehensible magic. The imperium is the architect of its own misery in this regard, and I am not sure that a comprehensive healthcare and genecare programme would be that much more expensive than weekly genocides...

Orks, again, are aliens. War against them is inevitable because of their nature.

Chaos cultists are... meh. I think they are misguided, but I think lots of people are misguided IRL and don't deserve genocide. If they want to open Warp portals, go ahead - the only people they are hurting are themselves and anyone on their planet. But the destruction the imperium brings is just as bad for themselves and anyone on their planet... Hell, just look at Armageddon!
"We must kill the chaos invasion!"
"Why?"
"For the other humans"
*Twelve seconds later*
"Ok we must kill the other humans now as per protocol."

Yea, the imperium really is a pretty gak place full of pretty gak people, and could be less gakky except that it's a reactionary authoritarian theocracy and so things like "maybe let's fight the genestealer plague like the way we fought that other disease in 0020.M2, instead of fighting it like it can be killed with bullets"

You nearly had me, but the "misguided Chaos cultists" bit pushed it a bit too far. Gr8 b8 m8 i r8 it 8/8.

The issue isn't how the IoM deals with Tyranids, Orks or Chaos. It is how it deals with Eldar, Tau, Kin and countless minor races.

Most xenos species aren't the Tyranids (there wouldn't be a galaxy left if they were), some of them even managed to develop simbiotic civilizations with humanity or have been allies against larger threats (like Tyranids). And yet the IoM exterminates them as a matter of policy.