Quote Originally Posted by Hellebore View Post
What killed the game for me was the degeneration of the background in 5th ed. IMO, at that point we got a 'Fall of the Eldar' scenario where the writers (like Ward) started an orgy of destruction in perpetual games of oneupmanship to see who's space marine codex could rack up the most victories, kill the most avatars and banish the most greater daemons.
Yes, one of the things GW doesn't understand is that you can have great heroes that aren't actually demigods.

I just finished (re)reading "Children of Hurin." Turin Turambar is one tough hombre. He kills lots of bad guys (and a few good guys ) in the course of his adventures.

The thing is, he gets beaten up in the process. When he kills a mighty dragon, he does it using a combination of the cheap shot and the low blow, but it's still heroic because if he didn't make the killing strike, he'd have been a hero-shaped piece of charcoal.

That is something GW lost over the years. The fact is that the "bad old" 2nd ed. heroes were actually quite mortal. You had to really trick out a space marine captain to take down a demon - and have a little luck as well. In fact, a handful of genestealers would rip most marines to bits - even the "bosses."

That made the game more interesting and the background more interesting.

After all, what's 'heroic' about curb-stomping midgets? If your guy is expected to win and does, where's the tension?

BTW, that's why I capped heroes and monsters at MS 6, with a 50-50 chance of a hit. Yeah, you can have magic weapons, or big strength, but the core question of whether you can hit is pretty much even money. That makes it a lot more tense.

Oh, and since combat is simultaneous, there's zero chance of you dropping your opponent without him at least getting an opportunity to mess you up.

Which is as it should be.