PDA

View Full Version : Favorite, and Least Favorite, Thing about 40K



Twisted Ferret
16-03-2012, 04:15
I mean this to be about 40K specifically, rather than hobby-general things like "it's the worst when your opponent is rude!" But the line can be hard to draw, so just go with your heart (or mutant blood-pump, or mechanical fluid-exchanger).

My favorite thing is almost tied between the background and the models... but the background wins out. To be more specific, the twin ideas of the Imperium and Chaos are just fantastic, and really give the 40K universe a unique feel; the Horus Heresy (the idea, not the novels), and its long aftermath, resonate with near-mythic force. Stunning betrayal, dark gods, vile sorcery, evil plots; an unimaginably huge empire at constant war, jaw-dropping oppression that might be necessary paired with noble sacrifice, ten-thousand-year-old grudges, an entire dimension roiling with unknowable, insane power - it can't be equaled in any other sci-fi universe, IMO. 40K just does everything bigger and badder, and nothing exemplifies this better than the Imperium and its most ancient and hated foe.

This is tied with the idea of Space Marine legions, and the Adeptus Mechanicus. The transhumanist philosophy - though so warped as to be nearly unrecognizable (but in a flavorful way!) - behind the AdMech is really interesting, and I love the idea of the tech-priests who slowly but surely choose to turn into machines themselves. Similarly, I love the way the legions exemplify different approaches to warfare, and even life in general. Like with the AdMech, they use certain basic assumptions about the world to maintain a unique character, which caters both to lovers of background and lovers of varied playing styles. (I just wish the AM would get a codex of their own!) Like deception and plotting? Believe knowledge is power in war? Alpha Legion! Want to rush into combat howling about blood and honor? Space Wolves! Want to... er... wear robes? Dark Angels!

Least-favorite? Improbably tiny forces is a good candidate. Grey Knights are the ultimate example of this (but all Space Marines are to some extent, and Tau might also fall under this). The idea behind them is fine; they're great "background flavor". But consider: we have an empire here with a million worlds; we have entities, so mighty as to be called gods, that have warped a region a thousand light-years in diameter* into a twisted hellscape; we have an extragalactic menace that may outnumber all the beings on all the planets in the entire Imperium; and we have... a force of 800** super-soldiers. Eight. Hundred. An entire galaxy of foes, and yet it was decided that we needed more improbably rare super-super-soldiers. Relative to the other forces available, it's not actually very different from giving a single Inquisitor his own codex and model range. That's what bothers me about it: I'd be a bit annoyed if the numbers didn't make sense, but I could get over it. But to give a "playable faction slot" to a force of eight hundred?!

It's either that, or Graham McNeill. His HH books are so dull I actually couldn't get through a couple of them (and I never give up halfway through a book!), but that's not why I'm beginning to loathe the fellow. No, it's because a.) he ruined the story of Magnus and the Thousand Sons through his timeline screwup in The Odious Diarrhea, and b.) he rendered the fascinating and characterful Iron Warriors into bland, generic Chaos Space Marines. If it weren't explicitly stated, you'd never know which legion you were reading about. Two out of the three most interesting factions - IMO - in the entire 40K setting, and the same man destroyed them both for me. Thanks, bro.

Now, if he gets to write something about the Adeptus Mechanicus, I will know Satan is real. We will be reading about tech-priests who get angry and throw temper tantrums, implants designed to make the user appreciate poetry more, and the current Fabricator General talking to Bill Clinton.

***

Your turn, Warseer. :)

*Estimate from its apparent size relative to a spiral arm. I have no idea how accurate this is.

**I don't actually know how many GK there are, but IIRC it's somewhere around this range.

Scribe of Khorne
16-03-2012, 05:06
Now, if he gets to write something about the Adeptus Mechanicus, I will know Satan is real. We will be reading about tech-priests who get angry and throw temper tantrums, implants designed to make the user appreciate poetry more, and the current Fabricator General talking to Bill Clinton.
.

See: Mechanicum. I liked it, and A Thousand Sons, different strokes I guess.

Favorite: The sheer scope of the setting is really awesome, greatest setting of all time? For me yes.
Least Favorite: Thats tough. You make a good point about unrealistically small forces I suppose, but thats more a symptom of 'how do we sell more X'. I suppose I could lament some of the recent fluff additions, but down that road lies self destruction. I dont know. I love 40k, what can I say.

Twisted Ferret
16-03-2012, 05:21
See: Mechanicum. I liked it, and A Thousand Sons, different strokes I guess.
He wrote Mechanicum? I thought that was Abnett, for some reason. Frankly, I was shocked, because Abnett is one of my favorite authors and I thought Mechanicum was boring, bland, and a huge waste of the potential seeing the AdMech before the HH could have offered. We get no insight into the AdMech as a faction, and they're basically just humans with metal bits. Very disappointing, not to mention a storyline so forgettable I have literally forgotten how it ended.

Well, that explains why Abnett disappointed me so much. Satan is Lord! :(

I've heard A Thousand Sons is good, though. I didn't know it, but he has written False Gods, A Thousand Sons, and Terrible Oozing Douches: the three books that all contradict each other as to timeline the most! Excepting Prospero Burns, he's single-handedly responsible for all of the contradictions! He actually wrote about Horus talking to Russ en route to Prospero, and then set the timeline so that Russ would have to know Horus was a traitor at that same point in time! I am a published author myself; I haven't written anything novel-sized, let alone several, so I can understand that it gets hard to keep straight... but good God, man. This has to be purposeful... yet why write for BL if you hate the setting this much, McNeill? Why? :(


Favorite: The sheer scope of the setting is really awesome, greatest setting of all time? For me yes.
Yep, definitely agreed. :)


Least Favorite: Thats tough. You make a good point about unrealistically small forces I suppose, but thats more a symptom of 'how do we sell more X'. I suppose I could lament some of the recent fluff additions, but down that road lies self destruction. I dont know. I love 40k, what can I say.
It actually took me a while to think of anything to complain about, except McNeill. :) I love WFB and 40K more than any other settings, and they're also what spurred me to write myself.

Re: recent fluff additions, I just got back into the hobby so I don't know exactly what they might be, excepting Newcrons. I'm divided on that particular issue, anyway, so so far, so good.

Reivax26
16-03-2012, 05:36
My favorite thing about 40k: Building up the underdog armies and bringing them to tournaments. They tend to catch people with their pants down. First it was Templars before they got their update, got to the final table and barely lost. Next it was Daemons. I've been to 2 final tables with them and barely lost both times. Now its Tau....muhahahahahaha

Least favorite thing about 40k: People who tailor lists to beat certain armies. A buddy of mine gets beat by my Daemons with his Blood Angels, next time I play him in the supposed "rematch" he shows up with a Dark Eldar army with enough poison weapons in it to drown any Daemon army. Needless to say I got tabled in 3 turns. I lost alot of respect for him after that.

Scribe of Khorne
16-03-2012, 05:40
He wrote Mechanicum? I thought that was Abnett, for some reason. Frankly, I was shocked, because Abnett is one of my favorite authors and I thought Mechanicum was boring, bland, and a huge waste of the potential seeing the AdMech before the HH could have offered. We get no insight into the AdMech as a faction, and they're basically just humans with metal bits. Very disappointing, not to mention a storyline so forgettable I have literally forgotten how it ended.


I guess I take the Admech in a different light. You mentioned they and the Astartes are transhuman. By definition I suppose both are, but I see them, again, in different lights.

Admech is not so much an escape from what it is to be human, as they are a modification and improvement (in their eyes of course) of humanity.
Astartes on the hand, are quite far removed from human. I like to see them as having a serious disconnect with humanity, as that is the sacrifice they make to have the power and impact in the setting that they have.

Both build upon being human, but the Admech simply try and remove weakness/improve themselves, while the Astartes are at the end of the day, a weapon grown to protect humanity proper.

All of that is to say that I personally like the humanizing touches seen in Mechanicum and also Know no Fear as its a bit of a departure from the thinking that they are all just pushing to become 'one with the machine'.

Chapters Unwritten
16-03-2012, 05:58
See: Mechanicum. I liked it, and A Thousand Sons, different strokes I guess.

Favorite: The sheer scope of the setting is really awesome, greatest setting of all time? For me yes.
Least Favorite: Thats tough. You make a good point about unrealistically small forces I suppose, but thats more a symptom of 'how do we sell more X'. I suppose I could lament some of the recent fluff additions, but down that road lies self destruction. I dont know. I love 40k, what can I say.

Right there with you brother. My least favorite thing about 40k is apparent though. The players.

I was not a native tabletop gamer and I'm newish to the whole world, but I started a successful club that peaked at 65ish members, and still regularly plays in a packed house every weekend on Sundays. Since I'm not native to the wargame scene I came in with a fresh perspective, looked at what other local clubs were doing wrong, and altered the practices accordingly. It is these decisions alone and the fortune of meeting a good crowd that made my club the success it is.

The reason why other players are my least favorite thing in 40k is because so many people hate the game, and hate Games Workshop for making it the way it currently is. I've had guys come into my club whose sole purpose it was to try and turn impressionable young minds away from this "mess" of a game.

My biggest obstacle has always been my own players, too. I created an epic website and forum for them, that probably would be a contender alongside Bell of Lost Souls if it got utilized or publicized. Fact is, however, I've done a lot of things for my club that I wish I hadn't. The forum took me months and they refuse to even post or register on it by and large. The website is set up such that anyone who is a member of the forum can automatically write stories for the site and, pending approval, they go public a short time later - but no one has ever used this functionality. A while back, we switched leadership from officers to an all-volunteer basis, and we got not one single volunteer.

40k players are entitled, xenophobic, and have impossible expectations, by and large. That is my least favorite part for sure. Thankfully I have a good group of players. I just wish they'd have a little more pride in the club; all of my work has been pretty much for nothing for the past some odd years.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
16-03-2012, 07:35
Favorite: Developing a general battleplan during deployment and then adapting it to suit changing conditions. I find my current DE lists to be well suited for this.
Least favorite: Some players, the Wardknight fluff.

Kijamon
16-03-2012, 09:15
Favourite: The sheer scale of the battles. I must have played 20 games so far in 2012 using a similar list, the constant being a rune priest and a wolf priest. I should really name them and track some sort of battle history of how they get on. I like building stories and even when losing you can get those one in a thousand chance happenings that make it a bit less sore.

Or the nicer players, ones that have a laugh with you and commiserate, celebrate and make you walk away from a loss thinking "I'll get you next time, gadget!!!" and not particularly offended.

Least favourite: Probably some of the players I've faced during my return to 5th edition. Someone conned my gf into thinking her packed to the brim storm raven into being everyone killed because it moved flat out and he destroyed it.

Someone told me that their Tau vehicle with the fancy auto wound upgrade would auto glance my dreadnought (I sorted that one out), I just hate general feigned ignorance but it's never ignorance against that player, always in their favour.

On the flip side, there's also someone who refused me taking a little bit of time to explain why the SW codex did what it did. Auto passing psychic test for Typhus is still effected by a rune priest, why a roll of a 6 for his daemon prince was deadly against JOTWW. I get that it smarts to be humbled by someone, I really do. But he flat out refused to read the page when I handed him my psychic tests then spent the rest of the game bitching about my army and the space wolf codex. I understand your frustration, I play chaos too but it's not my fault. I didn't write it and my army was not playing to the biggest strengths the codex offered.

Though probably my least favourite was an objective game, one in each corner, one in the middle fight. I was romping and the guy was down to a couple of guys, he won. Fair enough, objectives can go that way sometimes with space marine armies but he was inviting people over to the table to show off how he did it. It wasn't really his skill, it was my idiot move to hold one corner on my side instead of go for his side. Ridiculous by me. Anyway the bit that particularly annoyed me was during the game on my turn after I moved my grey hunter melta squad at the rear armour of his dreadnought, he said "Oh I meant to do this" and pivoted it so I hit side armour. Now if it's your turn, I don't mind stuff like that. It's easy to forget every little detail. If you let me away with stuff, I'll let you away with it. Not on my turn though, I was specifically moving my guys there to melta it in the rear armour. He acted a bit spoilt when I told him "No, not on my turn".

Oh also, people who watch your game but support the other player, that pisses me off. Watch quietly but don't say "Oh don't forget to use that power" or "He's got a single grey hunter left hiding behind that building". I get that it's your friend and you want him to win but let him do it and please for the love of everything holy, don't celebrate and dance about when he wipes out a squad. It's not a football match.

If you're going to play, let's do it fairly. If you beat me I won't complain, if I go home and read the rules later and find out you've been cheating, that just ruins my experience of a so far, fairly successful, return to 40k. Likewise, I'll be gracious in defeat. I expect the same.

Bunnahabhain
16-03-2012, 12:28
Favourite:
The Background, excluding those bits written in 5th Ed by Ward.

Worst:
The rules. Just about all of them are mediocre at best, or awful at worst.

totgeboren
16-03-2012, 12:36
Best:
The Background, and actually the miniatures. Many of them look really cool, but it's the combination of the background and miniatures that really gets me.

The worst:
Some of the new background, especially the GKs. Stuff like that could potentially cause me just shelf my stuff. Even if I don't face them, they take away so much from the 40k experience. However, some new stuff is really nice, like The First Heretic and the DE codex, so some good and some bad.
40k has many problems with the rules, but I have just been playing by the leaked rules lately, which are a lot more fun, so I hope they are somewhat close to the final 6:ed version (they have problems too believe me, but they are not beyond fixing).

Gazak Blacktoof
16-03-2012, 12:43
Favourite:
The Background, excluding those bits written in 5th Ed by Ward.

Worst:
The rules. Just about all of them are mediocre at best, or awful at worst.

I feel the same way.

The rules just don't make for an entertaining afternoon's gaming. Along with the problems in the basic game rules some of the newer units and their rules don't represent the background very well or else they attempt to change the scope of the game too much. Take the new flyers, the models are really cool, but their rules don't match the way a ground attack fighter-bomber, in any millennium, would operate. They're too slow and you can knock them out of the sky with small arms. There are other problems too, like loyalist space marines being masters psykers when they should get their puny genetically enhanced (but largely human) brains pulped by eldar, nids and warp fuelled traitor marines.

The models are also the best they've ever been, though there are some neglected units that could do with an overhaul. It makes me sad to look at a craftworld jetbike.

Carlosophy
16-03-2012, 13:06
Creativity and the lack thereof, at least from GW. I can't wait to get some 'blip' games of Zone Mortalis going off but the rules should really be in White Dwarf, not a footnote PDF on Forge World.

Chapters Unwritten
16-03-2012, 15:09
The reason why other players are my least favorite thing in 40k is because so many people hate the game, and hate Games Workshop for making it the way it currently is. [...] 40k players are entitled, xenophobic, and have impossible expectations, by and large. That is my least favorite part for sure. Thankfully I have a good group of players.


Worst: The rules. Just about all of them are mediocre at best, or awful at worst.

The rules just don't make for an entertaining afternoon's gaming.

Creativity and the lack thereof, at least from GW.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about: broad spectrum outright loathing of the game. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, obviously, but objectively, I don't see how you can make any of these complaints at the scale implied by the respective post authors, especially when it is apparent the game is in constant flux.

Vepr
16-03-2012, 15:18
The fluff is my favorite. The rules are my least favorite. There are a few exceptions like the DE codex but then you see something like the tyranid codex... :(

Fangschrecken
16-03-2012, 17:51
Favorite: Background and modeling. I like building the story behind my models into them, and in cases where they do something notable, I change the paint or something to remember it. Ex: I had a firewarrior squad with pulse carbines down to a few guys vs some warpspiders, and that was all that was left on the table. It being a friendly game we just kept going until total anihilation (it was a while ago so it might have only been 6 turns (4th ed)). It was my turn so I shot the spiders and figured, well those were assault weapons so I went in there, killed one(?) and then he jumped out shot my guys and I just repeated the process and fished them off. Nice to see Tau doing well in CC. Thus the three survivors have grey spider webs painted on the large shoulder plate.

I think the best part is just sitting back and playing a few good natured games with some pals on a saturday afternoon. Everyone is busy with work and such, but once a month we used to get together, compare new models and paint jobs and then play a few games. It makes all the difference if you've got a good community.

My least favorite has to be finding another gaming group. Everyone just sort of moved over a few years (myself included) and its sort of hard to get into it again (gaming not painting). You always ahve to worry about how new people are going to react and such, and that means the environment tends to not be as informal or close as my last group.

Szalik
16-03-2012, 18:39
Favourite: Models and fluff. The first one getting better and better. The second one, I mean the general concept, not getting into all of those BL books.

Worst: The rules. Way too simplified in some cases and overcomplicated in other. In some cases way too much imbalanced. Too much luck based too. I feel that I could do them better.

Captain Collius
16-03-2012, 19:20
favourite the models

least when people complain about my army being op (i play dark angels)

Ereshkigal
16-03-2012, 20:20
Least favorite thing about 40k: People who tailor lists to beat certain armies. A buddy of mine gets beat by my Daemons with his Blood Angels, next time I play him in the supposed "rematch" he shows up with a Dark Eldar army with enough poison weapons in it to drown any Daemon army. Needless to say I got tabled in 3 turns. I lost alot of respect for him after that.

QFT!

FAVORITE: The evilness of everything inside the game.
LEAST FAVORITE: Marines (expecially SW and GK). I just hate them for too many reasons, but the most important one is because it's way too easy to win with them against non-marines. They almost don't have weak spots...

Lord Damocles
16-03-2012, 20:35
Favourite: Background/models

Least Favourite: The idea that because models are painted a certain colour, they deserve/need special/different rules (this applies equally to Marines and non-Marines)

Scribe of Khorne
16-03-2012, 21:10
I find all the rule comments interesting. I took part in a large tournament recently (30+ tables) and cannot recall any issue that was so problematic that it wrecked any games. Sure some people dont LIKE some rules, most whingers complain about Wound Allocation for some reason, but its not as if its a hard game to figure out.

meltedwing
16-03-2012, 21:19
Favorite thing about 40k? Story and Models.

Least favorite thing about 40k? The rules. Especially the LOS rules.

Twisted Ferret
16-03-2012, 21:30
Favorite: Background and modeling. I like building the story behind my models into them, and in cases where they do something notable, I change the paint or something to remember it. Ex: I had a firewarrior squad with pulse carbines down to a few guys vs some warpspiders, and that was all that was left on the table. It being a friendly game we just kept going until total anihilation (it was a while ago so it might have only been 6 turns (4th ed)). It was my turn so I shot the spiders and figured, well those were assault weapons so I went in there, killed one(?) and then he jumped out shot my guys and I just repeated the process and fished them off. Nice to see Tau doing well in CC. Thus the three survivors have grey spider webs painted on the large shoulder plate.
Well, that's cool as Scheisse. I do the same thing; I've printed out a "unit info" sheet for each squad and character in my armies, so I can note any particularly valiant actions they've been involved in. I even keep a "kill counter" going (and "slaved captures" for my DE :D). Haven't thought to give them badges, though... that's a great idea.

It really gives your army character and history, and makes battles more exciting and immersive: stubborn enemy? No problem; I'll just send elite squad The Flesh Barons in to sort 'em out and drag them off to Commorragh... :evilgrin:


Best:
The Background, and actually the miniatures. Many of them look really cool, but it's the combination of the background and miniatures that really gets me.
QFT. :)


The worst:
Some of the new background, especially the GKs. Stuff like that could potentially cause me just shelf my stuff. Even if I don't face them, they take away so much from the 40k experience. However, some new stuff is really nice, like The First Heretic and the DE codex, so some good and some bad.
40k has many problems with the rules, but I have just been playing by the leaked rules lately, which are a lot more fun, so I hope they are somewhat close to the final 6:ed version (they have problems too believe me, but they are not beyond fixing).
I loathe that the Grey Knights are a playable force, for reasons expressed above; is that also your problem with them, or is there something else you don't like about them?


I feel the same way.

The rules just don't make for an entertaining afternoon's gaming. Along with the problems in the basic game rules some of the newer units and their rules don't represent the background very well or else they attempt to change the scope of the game too much. Take the new flyers, the models are really cool, but their rules don't match the way a ground attack fighter-bomber, in any millennium, would operate. They're too slow and you can knock them out of the sky with small arms. There are other problems too, like loyalist space marines being masters psykers when they should get their puny genetically enhanced (but largely human) brains pulped by eldar, nids and warp fuelled traitor marines.
I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this - especially examples of problems with, or background-inconsistent, rules. I'm not an experienced wargamer, but I've felt like the rules are broadly pretty good. However, it also irks me when there's a mismatch between background and gaming; the whole point of 40K, to me (aside from the models), is to get to participate in the background by commanding your own force; and when something is obviously not right sheerly in order to facilitate gameplay (or worse, for no apparent reason at all), it sort of ruins the immersion for me. I understand certain compromises have to be made, but there are always background-consistent ways to do them. A tiny bit less focus on rule-of-cool, a little thought on "how would this work", and we're all good.


The models are also the best they've ever been, though there are some neglected units that could do with an overhaul. It makes me sad to look at a craftworld jetbike.

Favourite: Models and fluff. The first one getting better and better. The second one, I mean the general concept, not getting into all of those BL books.
Agreed re: models and fluff; the models just keep getting more awesome. The Black Library novels are just about the best part, though! If they're well-done, anyway. It makes the background come alive. You ought to give 'em a try, if you haven't.


Worst: The rules. Way too simplified in some cases and overcomplicated in other. In some cases way too much imbalanced. Too much luck based too. I feel that I could do them better.
Any examples?


40k players are entitled, xenophobic, and have impossible expectations, by and large. That is my least favorite part for sure. Thankfully I have a good group of players. I just wish they'd have a little more pride in the club; all of my work has been pretty much for nothing for the past some odd years.
I'm sorry to hear they don't appreciate your work; it'd be great if my local club had someone like you. Anyway, I think the reason so many players appear to outright loathe the game is simply that they're passionate about it. I could complain about 40K all day - because I really like it, and spend a lot of time thinking about it, so even a little mistake or contradiction or what-have-you grates on me. The fact that it's constantly in flux, as you say, means that invariably stuff people like will be thrown out and stuff people don't like will be brought in. (Frankly, I wish they'd stop changing it so much with every new release of anything... if material is good, just leave it!) I think the players you quote will all say they like 40K, even if some things about it bug them.

That said, it irritates me when people talk as if the entire game is worthless to them. They're entitled to think that, but if they really think so - if they can't find any redeeming features at all - then why are they still playing?!


Favourite: Background/models

Least Favourite: The idea that because models are painted a certain colour, they deserve/need special/different rules (this applies equally to Marines and non-Marines)
Agreed; but what's a non-Marine example of that?

Lord Damocles
16-03-2012, 21:36
Previous editions were full of them (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?313770-A-proposed-solution-to-the-overabundance-of-space-marine-codexes&p=5713621&viewfull=1#post5713621), and the mindset still persists.

Make of the fact that only Marine examples are still present what you will... :shifty:

Freman Bloodglaive
16-03-2012, 22:28
I would have to say that the fluff is the best part, although I confess I prefer the older pre Horus Heresy stuff. Second edition was great, subsequent efforts... not so much. The models are well up there too.

Some of the more modern stuff is a bit of a Debbie downer. I don't need Space Wolves riding wolves, or Blood Angels who are basically Space Marines with extra blood. I've loved Mephiston since second edition (when he was basically a Vampire Lord) but a pint sized monstrous creature? Really?

Sildani
16-03-2012, 23:00
For me, the best part is the background. The universe is vast, engrossing, and had never quite been done before. I'm not blessing it with originality, mind, but it combined other ideas really well.

What I dislike the most is how that background is NOT represented on the tabletop. For example, the Eldar are elite and few in numbers. Their technology and psychic puissance are second to none, and they make no distinction between the sexes in battlefield roles.

And so, they have some of the most convoluted yet ineffective weapons (Night Spinner vs. Basilisk, bright lance vs. lascannon); a bargain-basement, woefully under-armored Troops choice; and Howling Banshees excepted, possessed of exactly six female models (Jain Zar included).

igwarlord
17-03-2012, 02:11
The best is making a new army

the worst is the horus herasy novels.

Corporeal
17-03-2012, 03:03
favourite: barney sathonyx. he always seems to stick around and only goes down after a massive fight.

likes: the general flow of the game.

dislikes: the accessory rules, like deepstriking, reserves.. that sort of thing. they work pretty well on some models and just fall flat on their face with others.

Chem-Dog
17-03-2012, 04:14
Favourite thing: The Setting. My first in was UK WD 131. It was the issue that heralded the release of Advanced Space Crusade, it featured a short story about Inquisitor Kryptman being hunted by a Tyranid creature, it also featured Bill King's account of the final Showdown between Horus and the Emperor. How can you not get hooked in by that combo?

Least favourite thing: There's a certain lack of finesse in the game these days. That and the apparent swing away from narrative as a driving force behind a game.

Project2501
17-03-2012, 04:17
My favorite things are the models and ability to do battle with them.

My least favorite things are bad sports.

Twisted Ferret
17-03-2012, 06:15
Previous editions were full of them (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?313770-A-proposed-solution-to-the-overabundance-of-space-marine-codexes&p=5713621&viewfull=1#post5713621), and the mindset still persists.

Make of the fact that only Marine examples are still present what you will... :shifty:
Thanks for the clarification. :) I see what you mean - but I do like the ability to differentiate between various factions-within-a-faction in a meaningful way. I think they just go a bit too far with it... and with Marines especially. E.g., I enjoy having a few minor rules modifications to differentiate an Ulthwe army from an Iyanden one (ability to take a few extra Wraithguard for the latter, for example), but - at risk of either making myself unpopular, beating a dead horse, or both - does each dang Marine chapter need its own entire codex?!


Some of the more modern stuff is a bit of a Debbie downer. I don't need Space Wolves riding wolves, or Blood Angels who are basically Space Marines with extra blood. I've loved Mephiston since second edition (when he was basically a Vampire Lord) but a pint sized monstrous creature? Really?
Agreed there. Space Wolves really ride wolves now? Really? Isn't that taking the wolf theme a bit far? :eek:


For me, the best part is the background. The universe is vast, engrossing, and had never quite been done before. I'm not blessing it with originality, mind, but it combined other ideas really well.

What I dislike the most is how that background is NOT represented on the tabletop. For example, the Eldar are elite and few in numbers. Their technology and psychic puissance are second to none, and they make no distinction between the sexes in battlefield roles.

And so, they have some of the most convoluted yet ineffective weapons (Night Spinner vs. Basilisk, bright lance vs. lascannon); a bargain-basement, woefully under-armored Troops choice; and Howling Banshees excepted, possessed of exactly six female models (Jain Zar included).
Agreed with everything here, times two. The vast 40K universe crams so much stuff in there it's... well, to paraphrase you, there's nothing else quite like it, and the combination of all the ideas (plus a fair amount of originality, I think!) results in a background of unparalleled richness.

So that makes it especially irritating when the background and tabletop game don't match up. The Eldar are a pet peeve of mine, too; one of my first gaming experiences was watching a battle involving Eldar. I had spent days reading about the speed and maneuverability of their armies, and especially vehicles; and how this combined with their stunning command of technology meant other forces cowered in fear when a grav-tank loomed near, etc etc...

...and man, I did not see any of that on the tabletop. Weak weapons, throwaway vehicles (jetbikes especially - their speed and maneuverability was not in evidence; they just got destroyed, and without accomplishing any fancy tactical maneuvers like I had imagined), paper armor... :wtf: I think they've done better with the Dark Eldar, now, but still.


The best is making a new army

the worst is the horus herasy novels.
Quoted for MFin' truth. :P


Favourite thing: The Setting. My first in was UK WD 131. It was the issue that heralded the release of Advanced Space Crusade, it featured a short story about Inquisitor Kryptman being hunted by a Tyranid creature, it also featured Bill King's account of the final Showdown between Horus and the Emperor. How can you not get hooked in by that combo?

Least favourite thing: There's a certain lack of finesse in the game these days. That and the apparent swing away from narrative as a driving force behind a game.
That short story sounds pretty awesome; I need to pick up that issue. Re: swing away from narrative, how so? That is - a narrative behind them is always the main reason I enjoy my games, and it's certainly a driving force with me, so if GW is downplaying this aspect in some way, that'd suck.

totgeboren
17-03-2012, 09:23
I loathe that the Grey Knights are a playable force, for reasons expressed above; is that also your problem with them, or is there something else you don't like about them?


I actually think it's ok for them to have their own codex. Sure, in the best of worlds, they would not, and the Lost and the Damned would have a codex in their place (they are a lot more common, and deserve a codex much more), but I can understand that people want to play the best!
I just think marines should be the best, that is their selling point, but whatever. GKs are better than the best, even within their codex. Like GK being per definition as pure as a a human can get, but then you have purifiers who are even more pure. What? And then they all start to perform sorcery, which is forbidden because no one, not even a Primarch can do it without being corrupted!
I didn't mind them as much with the old codex, though it was quite weak rulewise. The new codex on the other hand is really badly written. The rules are not fun to play against even if you win, and the fluff reads like something out of a Power Rangers episode. They just took all that made the GKs interesting and threw it out in the trash.

In short, when GW makes rules which makes me less inclined to play games, and make me less inclined to read the background, I enjoy the hobby to a lesser extent and therefore buy less stuff.

I'm a bit torn on the HH series. Many books are quite good, I even listed The First Heretic as one of my favourite things about w40k, but some simply dilute the mysteries. I which they had some better proof-reading, so we didn't get stuff like the messed up timeline in The Outcast Dead, but all in all, the HH series has made me appreciate w40k more.

Awilla the Hun
17-03-2012, 21:33
My favourite: fun players, and the massively diverse, epic backstory that allows us to have such diverse armies. I grew up with the Emperor on his Golden Throne and the Grim Dark Future of the 41st Milleniumm.

My least favourite: many of the novels are highly formulaic (some of the Gaunts, Eisenhorns and the first Cain are the exceptions.) My painting. And, of course, bad opponents.

big squig
19-03-2012, 01:53
Fav: Background and mosels

Least fav: 5th ed and it's codexes and a bazzilion special rules

LonelyPath
19-03-2012, 14:53
For me the best part if Forge World.

As for my least favourite aspect, that award easily goes to Ward's fluff any anything other than Codex Necrons (which as much better and had a touch of humour to it).

Vipoid
19-03-2012, 15:04
Favourite things:

The Background.

The models - especially customising models for my favourite creatures/characters.

Creating and playing a custom character (in terms of wargear etc.).


Least Favourite:

The Rules, and GW's attitude towards rules: 'We're a model company, not a rule company' (or however they like to phrase it). Newsflash GW - you are *not* just a model company, you are also a rules company, which is why all your models have rules. Gamers aren't going to be buying your 40 models if you can't be bothered writing decent rules for them.

In terms of rules, there are some that just get on my nerves:

-No Retreat and Charging into Cover - also known as the 'Not Playing Marines' taxes.
-TLoS - Whilst I appreciate the idea, I much preferred it when I wasn't penalised for having models in dramatic poses. Obviously GW would rather we played with models that lie on their bellies, after being fed through a mangle.
-The vehicle rules in general. "I know, let's make all vehicles much more durable and much cheaper. Then we'll make anti-vehicle weapons much cheaper and more abundant as well. Then we'll make no attempt to improve MCs (and even make them worse in some cases), despite them being vulnerable to the same weapons as vehicles, without the advantage of being ludicrously-cheap."
-The fact that a Killer-kan attempting death or glory against a rhino just takes a hit on its rear armour if it fails, whilst a Trygon is killed outright, with no saves of any kind allowed.
(I'll probably think of some more soon)

Special Characters. Or, more precisely, the trend of giving virtually all the interesting weapons, wargear and abilities to SC, and leaving regular HQs with barely more options than a sargeant. I want to make and use my own characters, not yours GW.