Thread 96579047

What was worse for warhammer 40k?
Marvelization or MTGization?
Personally I stand with the latter being worse simply because normies can like marvel but the lows of mtg players are far lower

Let me know if I got it right:

Marvelization only
>the setting is insufferably lame
MtG-ization
>the gameplay is impossible to enjoy

the setting was always dogshit. Its the players that have become worse

>>96579090
>the setting was always dogshit.

- nucrons
- everything related to Primaris
- Primarchs returning
- wammen
- more marine-wank than ever
- Leagues of Votann
- storyshitting, instead of a mostly static soap-box setting

Even if we grant that you're correct, it has gotten shittier.

>>96579110
None of those elements are what make the setting shit.

>>96579121
>Even if we grant that you're correct, it has gotten shittier.

>>96579110
>- nucrons
Aren't "nu"crons literally from 2011?

>>96579135
Yes. And XX chromosomes are older than 40k too

>>96579084
ye

>>96579141
>WE DEMAND INCLUSION IN EVERYTHING
You aren't represented by women, anon.

>>96579141
What

>>96579163
The transformer-people are reflexively supportive of any changes to the setting. Not because they necessarily like the changes, but because they are reflexively opposed to anything established; anything "old guard." I know, it's bizarre.

>>96579110
>Primarchs returning
having a real timeline is good shut up

>>96579163
Look two posts up.

>>96579520
This one? >>96579150

>>96579047 (OP)
The worst thing for 40k was GW going public. If they didn't have the faggot endless profit increase motive they might have still remained a hobbyist-centric company and writers. Both the marvelization and MTGization are caused by the company chasing profit growth

>>96579536
ye

>>96579047 (OP)
40k gameplay was shit since like 6e bro.
Like it was always a worse version of whfb gameplay wise and its setting is all that keeps it afloat

>>96579110
Dan Abnett (marvel writer for Death's Head and Guardians of the Galaxy) wrote for Warhammer before all of that.

>>96579047 (OP)
Ruining the lore is worse than the gameplay, in my view, simply because there was more to ruin. 40k has always had weird bits of lore, but prior to 8th was generally interesting enough to make me bother playing it, despite the gameplay being objectively pretty poor. Post-8th, the gameplay got a lot worse, but the setting also took such a nosedive that I have no further interest in it. Even worse, that bad setting follows over into secondary media, so despite this being an era with a lot of really good looking secondary media for 40k most of it is ruined by nulore.

40k is defined by lore more than ruleset. So ruining the lore is worse.

>>96579781
Having a former marvel writer isn't what people mean by marvelization
Its more media aping the MCU's tone and style than anything

>>96579047 (OP)
MTGization was infinitely worse.
to be honest, i don't really care what they do in the nu-lore; you can just choose to ignore it, and the aesthetic is most of the setting's charm anyways, not the specific happenings within it.
but the MTGization of the gameplay with stratagems, restricted loadouts, fixed points costs, and other such e-sporty compfaggotry makes actually playing the game miserable, unless you're one of the rare few people that has friends who can be coerced into playing older editions.
or you can just play heresy, but who knows how long it'll be before that gets Shrimplified too.

>>96579537
Capitalism...

>>96579913
I think there was more at play than an economic theory

>>96579047 (OP)
>Marvelization or MTGization?
What's the difference?

>>96579978
So you've posted a side product specifically designed and marketed to extract money from a very particular group of people, and you're saying that that's not capitalism?

>>96580222
The former is how the lore has been inspired by marvel: Quipy shit, the primarchs being like the avengers, less weird stupid shit that would scare normies

The latter is how the game is now more about netdecks and listbuilding rather than positioning and the like