• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Bolter Bashing (may contain flame wars)

ironlord

Black Knight
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
397
#1
Well i opened up a can of worms in my WD August thread and provoked a few opinionated responces from some gentlemenly folk in the community here. So it occurs to me that some people here may need a venting point for their opinions about those power armoured, drop podding leviathons we know as space marines (and subsequently the rest of the 40k universe).

So here it is, this is just a thread where people can open up their own cans of worms and start biting off their heads!

I will remind people that we are on a forum, behind those forums are people typing, just remember that the typers are PEOPLE, so dont launch scathing attacks against people, you are only allowed to vent against the 40k universe here.

Can I beg admins and mods not to swing the banhammer here as well? Some people need a place to vent and this provides an opertunity for people to do so. If people follow the rules of the forum there shouldn't be a problem with this thread and it should give people the chance to voice their beliefs on a subject that we all probably have an opinion on...
 

doombunny666

Black Knight
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
397
#2
the 40k background section has been cut and reformed from a alien style 10 on 10 close quarters to a stupidly big apocaliptic planet battle now theyve even done titans we need more warhammer and less 40k
 

Disciple of Nagash

The Perverted One
Staff member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
27,917
#5
ironlord said:
Can I beg admins and mods not to swing the banhammer here as well? Some people need a place to vent and this provides an opertunity for people to do so. If people follow the rules of the forum there shouldn't be a problem with this thread and it should give people the chance to voice their beliefs on a subject that we all probably have an opinion on...
If people follow the rules and don't start throwing insults there will be no need to "swing the banhammer". As with every thread on CN, I will read this and if I feel it is getting out of order I will post a friendly warning.

However I think most on here are mature enough to know what is acceptable and what is not......
 

ironlord

Black Knight
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
397
#6
thanks too DoN for letting this run
well to be honest my problem with the 40k universe is that they have all of this fluff that is brilliantly written by pro authors about these legions like gaunts ghosts or the mechanicus/titan legions and they focus on generic cadians or bland ultramarines

i suppose im an ultramarines hater more than anything in 40k (but eldar still get a good volume of hate for being space elves) simply because they are everywhere! unless its a really well converted first company legion that have their own hand crafted shoulder pads they are simply a cookie cutter army
if you were to hold a tournament for junior players (below the age of 18) im willing to bet that most of those who show up will have a 3rd company ultramarine army, blue armour, boltgun metal and blood red trim because thats what they see on the boxes when they walk in with daddies cash in hand

it takes the creativity out of a hobby that revolves around individuals making their own armies
because thats what you do in GW games... make YOUR OWN armies rather than just follow the trend

the only way GW could counter this is by making an introduction box that doesnt have marines in it
i wouldn't mind seeing the dark eldar going up against the mechanicus imperial guard on an outpost comet hurtling around in space

the dark eldar are going to use the comet's satellites to scout out the nearby planets for a massive invasion and the mechanicus believe that the comet contains the lost plans for a new pattern of rifle weapon that can help them overturn a war against the eldar in another part of the galaxy by piercing their armour more efficently saving more energy for doing damage to the squishy part of the body

see, you can make a basic system introduction without using the words, "space marine" or "ultra"

or is it even possible for GW to break their marine-cookie-cutter-money-making-machine and take a risk with something origional like their novels
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
688
#7
I was just about to comment on your aforementioned thread, when I noticed this one.

My comment was in regards to the degree of dissatisfaction experienced by readers of WD as to the seemingly disproportionate amount of 40k inclusion within the magazine, arguably to the cost of Fantasy content.

As a primarily fantasy player*, I am entirely comfortable with this.

Perhaps an alternative analogy can best illustrate my point of view. As its Wikipedia page will tell you, Electronic Arts (EA) is an international developer, marketer, publisher and distributor of video games. Their most lucrative franchises are arguably the many, many sports games under it's belt. I have next to no interest in such games, and yet I can appreciate the incredible sales figures on a game such as Madden NFL finances games such as Dead Space and Mirror's Edge. The latter two games I have far more interest in.

In my mind, these are 'better' games. In my mind, more 'serious' gamers consider these games superior to the mainstream sales-monsters that are Madden, Harry Potter, Sims and Fifa games.

In my mind, Fantasy is a better game than 40k and I have noticed that the average player of Fantasy displays higher levels of tactical acumen than the average player of 40k. However, I recognise that in terms of the audience that Gamesworkshop caters to I am in the minority. For whatever reason, this is the case and I am comfortable with that. I am comfortable in the knowledge that with every new collector of a Space Marine army, the Skaven are closer to release - for example.

I wish it was the other way round, but hey, it isn't.

*my only game of 40k in recent years was one played across Vassal as a means to test the software.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
424
#8
It always seems that the main figures in an universe are generally the most popular, but also the most bland. The Ultramarines don't have any special quirks that set them apart from other chapters, like the Dark Angel's piousness and hidden secrets, the Blood Angel's Red Thirst and Black Rage, or the Space Wolves.... really everything awesome.

In CBT, the Davions are the generic "free" and "equal" monarchy with a military that somehow manages to hold off superior numbers of better troops through sheer use of narrativium and a healthy dosage of fiat. However, the interesting factions like the Lyrans, a German-themed corrupt economy-based state that makes up for inferior combat training and "Social Generals" through massive production of high-quality technology.

Fantasy doesn't seem to have that, luckily; the developers don't have a "baby" race yet, and here's hoping they never do.
 

Ghouly

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
5,517
#9
My strategy is the same for both fantasy and 40k get into melee and crack skulls so I go for the armys that support that namely Chaos and Orks for 40k and Orcs and Goblins,Beasts,Warriors and Daemons for fantasy.

Space marines themselves don't really bother me due to my choice of armies and tactics however what I can't stand is when some little prick half my age comes in with his horribly painted Ultras and puts down armies Like Dark Eldar because they don't have a 3+ armor save.
 
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
734
#10
Space marine players are not in the majority in my gaming club . The majority is actually necrons . We also dont have the type of kid that ghoulking mentioned but we do have our fair share of young'ns and only one of them plays marines . Maybe my club is weird ...
 

doombunny666

Black Knight
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
397
#11
marines are ok but not little kiddy marines

what im saying is armies like dark angels and blood angels and space wolves (despite the frankly terrible hair) are fun and quirky were as the standard little kiddy army of ill get a completely balanced force just like it syas i should and that kinda thing P***** me off a guy i know bought a space wolf army (fine) did excatly what the book told him (although added half a ton of gloss to the paint job) and made a 750pt army that had excatly the suggested army in the book even the character set up i mean god have some imagination he then made a imp guard army who are the most diverse thing in GW i think guess what cadians yep not even any special ones cadian 8th creed and kells test tube babies (you get what i mean here:|) luckily the closest fantasy has to a baby race is dwarfs and goblins just because there in the box set and gw will never have a starter box without marines and by the looks of it never without ultra in the future no matter the opponent it will always be ultra simply because marines have the least people in an army bassically and no monsters so hay easy to make and overcharge for
 

Sweeney Todd

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
4,036
#12
The problem with Marines in 40k is that GW has been completely commercially-driven for a long time, and as Smurfs are their biggest cash cow they would obviously go out of their way to milk it fully and market them to the exclusion of all others. Hence a cycle is created where new kids/guys starting 40k see nothing but Marines and hence follow suit, which in turn leads to GW pushing Marines upon their market even more.
 

Swissdictator

Vampire Count
True Blood
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
1,547
#13
I'm primarily interested in the squad/platoon level skirmish feel of the main game. The only thing I wish was different was more variety in armies *among the players*. I admit I currently run CSM, and will eventually do IG... but it does seem power armor heavy in terms of what players field. That's fine, and I understand why (cheap and easy). That's my only real beef. I'm lucky that I've had a very pleasant experience with 40k with the local gamers.

For the large scale stuff (company/regiment/brigade) level actions, then I would use Epic. The smaller scale of figures in epic allows the larger scale games to function far more properly in my opinion... as you have much more room to move, etc.
 

doombunny666

Black Knight
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
397
#14
for once the swiss have an opinion:tongue: no offence intended

absolute sense 40k should have a more skirmish feel to it thats why i love necromunda so much just a couple of gangers with 2 laspistols each having a proper shootout
 

Onikaigo

Vampire Lord
True Blood
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
3,607
#15
doombunny666 said:
for once the swiss have an opiniontongue no offence intended
Awesome.

I play both 40K and fantasy, and I find both games to be challenging and stimulating in different ways. Fantasy (As I found out yesterday...) relies a lot more on base 'Tactics' while 40K relies on 'Strategy', to be very very broad on the topic.

For example.

Fantasy: Last night I played 1K ogres teamed with 1K Warriors against 1K Brets & Lizardmen.
I got absolutely humiliated in that game. I killed...oh....three, four models? Movement was horrible, I didn't get charges, I double stacked low leadership units, etc etc....I got hammered due to bad tactics. Not strategy, as Ogres are a little lacking on the finer points of things. The biggest tactic we have is Flank charges, and I love it.

Fantasy has strengths is Army Comp, Movement, and force application. I.E Getting the right unit to deal with the threat.

40K: I've admittedly played far fewer games, but from what I've seen deployment matters so very much less. I botch my deployment in Fantasy, game might as well be over in most cases. In 40K, you can still easily recover due to the proliferation of ranged attacks, speed of skirmishing units, etc. 40K to me employs more of a Force Application Focus than fantasy by a far degree, with movement and overall Tactics taking a back seat. You have to get X unit to kill Y unit, or Y unit is going to trash this flank. In Fantasy the same holds true to an extent, but with the exception of a Bloothirster or a Steam Tank (Unlike the Carnifex/Tyrant/Titan/Big Creature/Armor proliferation in 40K) nearly every unit can kill every other unit given the right circumstances. I've found in 40K, if you get that Tyrant or Carnifex stuck in with IG infantry or Non-power fist SM's that the Carnifex wins by default. The inability of many units to harm other units turns the game into a cookie cutter application fest.

"Get X rocket shots on this Land Raider because they're all I've got that can hurt it..."

I've said that before. So, the focuses of 40K in my opinion are:

Force Application, Army comp to include enough of X weapons to achieve priority one.


But, I must say, leading 200 or so Orkz across the table, all armed with shootas and Rokkits and ahead of them...well....More boys in Trukks with rokkits or Flamers....That's a sight to behold.
 

Sweeney Todd

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
4,036
#16
Onikaigo said:
doombunny666 said:
for once the swiss have an opiniontongue no offence intended
Awesome.

I play both 40K and fantasy, and I find both games to be challenging and stimulating in different ways. Fantasy (As I found out yesterday...) relies a lot more on base 'Tactics' while 40K relies on 'Strategy', to be very very broad on the topic.

For example.

Fantasy: Last night I played 1K ogres teamed with 1K Warriors against 1K Brets & Lizardmen.
I got absolutely humiliated in that game. I killed...oh....three, four models? Movement was horrible, I didn't get charges, I double stacked low leadership units, etc etc....I got hammered due to bad tactics. Not strategy, as Ogres are a little lacking on the finer points of things. The biggest tactic we have is Flank charges, and I love it.

Fantasy has strengths is Army Comp, Movement, and force application. I.E Getting the right unit to deal with the threat.

40K: I've admittedly played far fewer games, but from what I've seen deployment matters so very much less. I botch my deployment in Fantasy, game might as well be over in most cases. In 40K, you can still easily recover due to the proliferation of ranged attacks, speed of skirmishing units, etc. 40K to me employs more of a Force Application Focus than fantasy by a far degree, with movement and overall Tactics taking a back seat. You have to get X unit to kill Y unit, or Y unit is going to trash this flank. In Fantasy the same holds true to an extent, but with the exception of a Bloothirster or a Steam Tank (Unlike the Carnifex/Tyrant/Titan/Big Creature/Armor proliferation in 40K) nearly every unit can kill every other unit given the right circumstances. I've found in 40K, if you get that Tyrant or Carnifex stuck in with IG infantry or Non-power fist SM's that the Carnifex wins by default. The inability of many units to harm other units turns the game into a cookie cutter application fest.

"Get X rocket shots on this Land Raider because they're all I've got that can hurt it..."

I've said that before. So, the focuses of 40K in my opinion are:

Force Application, Army comp to include enough of X weapons to achieve priority one.


But, I must say, leading 200 or so Orkz across the table, all armed with shootas and Rokkits and ahead of them...well....More boys in Trukks with rokkits or Flamers....That's a sight to behold.
I think you exaggerate a bit. It's true than in 40k deployment matters less, because as the game's movement is more fluid/freeform it's a lot easier to recover from bad deployment. But it's not so inconsequential as to be a tertiary concern. You can get hammered due to tactics as well, but once again in 40k it's a lot easier to recover from this. In fact some armies are designed to be durable even against your own mistakes *cough* Smurfs *cough* Necrons *cough*.

As for spam(or Force Application Focus, in the very politically correct tone you used), a large part of army comp is to make sure your army has the ability to deal with all kinds of threats adequately. If you find yourself with no choice but to "Get X rocket shots on this Land Raider because they're all I've got that can hurt it..." then you have only yourself to blame. That, or your army is gimped in that department, but 40k and Fantasy are alike in that there will always be old codices/armybooks that became weak due to power creep. For example Tau, my very first wargaming army, are now at the bottom of the 40k food chain because of this effect.

It's true that in 40k a lot of things are unable to hurt certain other units, but you forget to consider the expendability of said units. Especially small IG squads.

I do agree that 40k is a lot more on the list itself than Fantasy. But you can't say that a superior list will always autopilot itself to victory, as you seem to be suggesting.

PS: FYI the only noob-friendly army I play is Necrons, and they weren't my first army. And for that matter I don't and will never play any human armies in 40k. With the sole exception of a pure Legion of the Damned list, but that doesn't exist any more.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
99
#17
Agree with the above post. Only a couple of weeks ago I thrashed an ork player using a nasty list; 90 boys, Nobz with PK's in each squad, 10 lootas, Grazkgull with ten nobs (armed with big choppas +2S) in a truck. I played a fairly balanced (I think) space marines list, 20 tacticals, 10 scouts, Captain with 5 termies, a Land raider and two vindicators.

Deployment and tactics are still key in 40k. I'll agree that fantasy is much more tactically demanding. (And screwing fantasy deployment is potentially gamebreaking!)
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,162
#18
Both games have their strengths and weaknesses. Fantasy is a more involved, more tactical and strategic game, thanks to the added complexity of the movement and magic phases when compared to 40k.

But 40k is faster to learn, faster to play, and generally faster to assemble and paint an army for.

Another result of the reduced complexity of 40k is that there is a notably smaller gap between the best and worst performing armies, and fewer 'rock-paper-scissors' match ups where the choice of faction alone has a massive impact on how the game will run. With my chaos marines, in all the variations they've been through since 3rd edition, I've never played a game that I felt was decided before lists were even written. Now that I'm playing vamp counts again in fantasy, there are armies that I can't even imagine losing to. And then there's daemons, which just seems hopeless.

For this reason, I have never play in a fantasy tournament that I enjoyed, while I have played in and enjoyed the occasional 40k tourney.

40k also encourages more and more varied scenery, which I like in a game. I can't remember the last fantasy game I played where the terrain wasn't 'one hill on both deployment zones, one forest or hill to each side between deployment zones, centerfield open. The absolute hassle of moving through terrain, and of using any terrain besides hills, forests, and the occasional house, and the extreme penalty to a shooty army that lacks access to a hill, means that our gamefields are all the same.

In 40k, I see forests & hills, but also ruined buildings (which are, imo, much better integrated into the rules then buildings are in fantasy), bunkers, minefields, landing pads, roads, craters, and so on.

I also prefer 40k's general focus on objective based games, rather then fantasy's default 'kill guys until time runs out', with decreasing value to any other objective as the points value of the game increases.

40k is also playable at a wider range of points values. Without a magic phase to gum things up, it can function more smoothly at very high points values, and I find 40k is also much more accommodating to low points value games in the 500 pts range. The balance of the games still suffers at these extremes, but it remains more playable under these circumstances, imo.

Another thing I enjoy about 40k is the setting. WHFB is pretty standard dark fantasy stuff - vaguely midieval european, some magic stuff pretty much directly ripped from Moorcock... eh. But take those same tired dark fantasy tropes and put them In Spaaaace, and you get something pretty cool, and a lot more clearly distinguished from the typical tropes of the genre. The Horus Heresy mythology is pretty darn interesting, and the large chunks of backstory left empty, with a bunch of contradictory hints and clues to spark debate and theory, just seems far more inspiring to my imagination.


Don't get me wrong. I find Fantasy to be a more enjoyable game. At least, when I'm playing against an opponent of approximately equivalent skill, using an approximately equivalent list and faction. I've been reducing my hobbying recently, and while I still have vamp counts, I no longer own a 40k faction, nor do I have any interest in picking one up. But I can still see why some other players might prefer 40k, and why 40k has an easier time picking up new players.
 

Capt Rubber Ducky

Vampire Count
True Blood
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,549
#19
ironlord said: (can't make quote button work atm)
"if you were to hold a tournament for junior players (below the age of 18) im willing to bet that most of those who show up will have a 3rd company ultramarine army, blue armour, boltgun metal and blood red trim because thats what they see on the boxes when they walk in with daddies cash in hand."

I'm a bit late but i think you've gone a bit high on the age there, I'm not 18 yet and i wouldn't touch blue space morons with the end of a barge poll with several zombie hands strapped to the end of it. (i think below the age of 13-14)

Blue space marine armies belonging to little kids = Space morons xD
 

Meier Lenk

Black Knight
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
320
#20
doombunny666 said:
marines are ok but not little kiddy marines

what im saying is armies like dark angels and blood angels and space wolves (despite the frankly terrible hair) are fun and quirky were as the standard little kiddy army of ill get a completely balanced force just like it syas i should and that kinda thing P***** me off a guy i know bought a space wolf army (fine) did excatly what the book told him (although added half a ton of gloss to the paint job) and made a 750pt army that had excatly the suggested army in the book even the character set up i mean god have some imagination he then made a imp guard army who are the most diverse thing in GW i think guess what cadians yep not even any special ones cadian 8th creed and kells test tube babies (you get what i mean here:|) luckily the closest fantasy has to a baby race is dwarfs and goblins just because there in the box set and gw will never have a starter box without marines and by the looks of it never without ultra in the future no matter the opponent it will always be ultra simply because marines have the least people in an army bassically and no monsters so hay easy to make and overcharge for
being (at one point) an avid dark angels player i dont really think theyve got much to individualise them other than fluff now. whilst fluff is awesome, i liked the (4th ed.?) where they had the stubborn special rule, which was as often a curse as it was a blessing (i always took it lol) whereas now they are just ultramarines with better dress sense and a penchant for north american styled frippery (and even thats being phased out as its not "gothic" enough tbh)

although imo GW has only damaged the vamps' by buffing them so heavily, i really lament the end of the dark angels as an interesting army on the field itself, rather than just a fotm* list with some vaguely interesting backstory.


*edit. this is a term used on a game i play, cant think of an equivalet, its "falcon of the month" and basically refers to something over-used because it got buffed rediculously in the most recent patch
 

Gree

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
4,953
#21
Kaladas Harkon said:
It always seems that the main figures in an universe are generally the most popular, but also the most bland. The Ultramarines don't have any special quirks that set them apart from other chapters, like the Dark Angel's piousness and hidden secrets, the Blood Angel's Red Thirst and Black Rage, or the Space Wolves.... really everything awesome.
Actually like Ultramarines just because of that. This may shock you. But I consider Ultramarines to be cooler and more characterful than Space Wolves or Blood Angels. And I don't even play Ultramarines. (Although I do play an Ultramairnes sucessor chapteR)

Ultramarines don't need a dark past, or a geneseed flaw in order to win. No, they with with good old fashioned tactics and teamwork.

Or at least the Pre-5th Edition Ultramarines. Now Mat Ward makes them able to do anything.

I like 40k, I will admit, despite my love for the VC, I am primarily a 40k player. It's easier to find games in my area, and I don't consider it to be a game of poor tactics at all, often I have had to think of what I wanted to do.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,162
#22
Another thing - there's a lot of age elitism in these 40k vs. Fantasy arguments that gets to me. You're painting and playing with toy soldiers. That's what this hobby is. No need to get so uppity about it.

Further, I happen to like ye olde generic armies. I love the core, foundational stories. The Horus Heresy. The Von Carstein wars. The life of Nagash, back in the old undead. I don't mind the existence of variant armies, but for my taste all their side plots and side rules muddy up the strongest, boldest parts of the fluff. So yeah, I'll take Ultrasmurfs/Black Legion/Von Carsteins over Dark Angels/Iron Warriors/Strigoi five out of seven days of the week.

I'll paint and field an army reflect the core fluff and principles of the army I pick. Sure, it may not be as creative, but at least when someone plays against me they feel like they played a game against an army like 'Chaos Marines' or 'Wood Elves' or 'Vampire Counts', not against a gimmick like 'daemon bomb' or 'double tree' or 'Deathstar'. Of course I'm envious of incredibly amazing and original armies like CoB's moonlight army or that Devo's Carnivale, but those are more a matter of amazing painting or converting, not list construction, and would be amazing even if they were running a completely generic 'by the book' list.

And those amazing converting and painting skills are beyond most people's talents, and indeed had to begin somewhere. Frankly, a kid with a spark of talent who starts learning the basics young has a better chance of becoming another CoB or Devo one day then somebody who was shunned by the local gaming club until she was old enough to be properly snobby.


So yeah, I welcome the younger players. And the generic armies. I don't see any good reason not to. Of course, I also appreciate what 'Yugioh' and 'Pokemon' bring to the gaming table and community, and was the guy who ran all the demos and lessons and tourneys for the little kids back when I worked at an flgs, and I'm the oldest of five brothers, and I remember what it was like to be a nerd when I was little too, it wasn't something I blossomed into as an adult, so yeah. Maybe I'm predisposed to thinking 12+ is a perfectly appropriate age to play a little 40k, or 14+ a perfectly appropriate age to play some fantasy (not that a 12 year old couldn't play fantasy, just that fantasy armies are an aweful lot more expensive - requiring higher points and generally more models per point to function properly).

And 5 or 6+ is a perfectly appropriate age to paint some models. Why not? I've known plenty of 5 or 6 year olds who could paint a nicer model then one of those 'spanish flag' armies (3 color minimum? legs are one color, torso's another color, heads another color - boom, painted, now I get to play in the store/tournament), especially with a patient instructor to walk them through such basics as 'watering the paint down' and 'periodically washing the brush'. You know, basics that seem to completely escape an aweful lot of warhammer players who otherwise have no problem picking up on things like 'washing' and 'drybrushing'.


Hrm... Well, that's become something of a rant, hasn't it? Huh. Didn't quite mean it as such. Oh, well.
 

Marcus Von Drac

Vampire Thrall
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
952
#23
You make some good points there Malisteen. I think the issue here isn't one of 40K vs Fantasy, it's one of GW's money making agenda. As has been said, the aspiring gamers come onto the store and blah blah blah Ultramarines army. Now thats fine, people need to start somewhere, but the problem lies in that GW caters to the new gamers. Now its good that they help them out, after all its quite a bit of hobby to get into, but they do that to the exclusion of all else.
Many longer playing gamers either prefer Fantasy, or play it equally, but GW are too immersed in making money, so they focus everything on smurfs, as an attempt to draw in the new players. This leaves the longer-playing players (I know its long winded but I hate 'old-timers') hanging out to dry, and with gradually less and less content in WD and all other aspects of the game. We all like the game as it is (or we wouldnt be here), but GW seems to think that we are happy sitting by while they ignore us and rope in the little rich kids with shiny 3+ save noob armies. If they just put a bit more effort into maintaning the balance and catering to new and older players, then it wouldnt be so bad.

Also about the Ultramarines. Personaly I like them, I think they are a very cool and central part of the 40K universe. The problem is their over-used. There are another 999 odd chapters out there, so we need to here about that! GW need to make some fluff with someone other than Cato Sicarius/Marneus Calgar rescuing worlds and battling deamons. Let people choose for themselves, not just go for the epic heroes that are the Ultramarines!
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,162
#25
A number of reasons. First, most daemon princes lose focus shortly after ascension. Take the daemon primarchs - those that aren't dead are generally content to rule over their daemon worlds. Even Angron who continues fighting, has abandoned his legion in favor of a daemonic host, and spends most of his time fighting other daemons in the warp. Abby's goal isn't the same as other chaos warriors. He's not fighting to gain immortality. He's fighting to destroy the Imperium, and won't accept daemonhood until that goal is achieved. And even if he would, he's put the entire measure of his success or failure on whether he eventually defeats the Imperium, so he might not even be eligible for princedom or spawndom until his campaign meets a final success or failure.

Second - Horus never became a daemon prince. While Abby spoke out against Horus after his death as a means of getting his Legion past that blow, it seems clear that Abby still personally idolizes his primarch and seeks to emulate him.

Finally, there's some 40k fluff (the Horus Heresy novel about the Emperor's Children in particular, spoiler warning!!!) implying that humans don't become daemons, and that the process of becoming a daemon prince is one in which the original person's soul and personality is dominated and consumed by a daemon - which would go a long way to explaining the giant personality shifts that most daemon princes exhibit. This is certainly implied to be the case with the EC primarch, and might be the case for all daemon princes. Horus knew what happened in this case, and Abby might know it as well.
 
Top