History BrokenBase / OtherMedia

* BrokenBase/{{Disney}}

* BrokenBase/Disney

* ''Franchise/StarWars'':
** Initially, there was a split between original trilogy fans and prequel trilogy fans, though it was mostly one-sided for the former, as most prequel trilogy fans also like the originals. Many OT fans hated the prequels for its retcons, scripting and acting problems and overlooking practical effects in favor of CGI among many things. As time went on, and especially after the sequel trilogy came out, many OT fans began to appreciate the prequels more, so this rivalry is less prominent now than it was pre-2015.
** Ever since the sequel trilogy came out, the original trilogy fans ''and'' prequel trilogy fans declared war on the sequel trilogy and you'd be hard pressed to find a vocal fan who likes all three trilogies. Prequel and original fans claim that the first six films form a single coherent narrative and that the sequel trilogy is just a pointless rehash of the original trilogy that adds nothing spectacular. Sequel fans view the original trilogy as [[SeinfeldIsUnfunny good overall, but its merits haven't aged well]] and say that the sequel trilogy is better acted, directed and produced, and significantly more fun to watch than the prequels as well as truer to the spirit of the original trilogy without feeling as dated. As you might suspect, the two sides don't get along; in fact, they arguably hate each other.

** The biggest argument among fans is whether the ComicBook/XMen should join the MCU, a debate that has been around since the franchise's inception and has heated up in light of the Disney-Fox merger. Those supporting their inclusion argue that incorporating the X-Men would allow them to have more fantastical adventures and comics-accurate costumes instead of having everything be grounded and gritty as seen in the Fox's movies. On the other hand, some have pointed out that the [[FantasticRacism oppressed minority]] metaphor wouldn't work in the MCU when there are other superpowered heroes present who don't experience the same prejudice as the mutants. Then there are concerns that the X-Men will be tonally watered down to fit within the much more family-friendly MCU with R-Rated fare like Deadpool getting downplayed or shunted off.
** ''Film/{{Doctor Strange|2016}}'': The casting of Creator/TildaSwinton as the Ancient One has been divisive. While many are glad to have a powerful character be portrayed by a female actor, especially one as accomplished as Swinton, others are upset that the original Tibetan version wasn't used, mostly because the MCU had yet to feature a heroic Asian person in the films.[[note]]The first Asian-descended performer to get BilledAboveTheTitle as an MCU protagonist, half-Filipino [[Wrestling/{{Batista}} Dave Bautista]], did so for playing an alien, ComicBook/DraxTheDestroyer, in ''Film/{{Guardians of the Galaxy|2014}}''.[[/note]] Co-writer C. Robert Cargill's comments on it being done to prevent the movie from being BannedInChina due to a potential positive portrayal of a Tibetan character (which the studio itself later denied) added more controversy, because China, which is a huge market for Marvel, is not on good terms with Tibet. Cargill also didn't help things by accusing all the people upset over it of being "social justice warriors", though he later backpedaled on it and said everyone absolutely has the right to have issues with it.

*** The fact that Tony Stark is the one making Spider-Man's suit upgrades -- an element which was already a bit divisive following ''[[Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar Civil War]]'' -- has caused a bit of a stir among the fans. Some don't like it, as they feel it cheapens Peter's status as an independent TeenGenius who was never anyone's sidekick in the comics, and they feel that the story's focus on [[SpotlightStealingSquad Iron Man]] comes at Peter's expense. Others defend the idea as being consistent with the idea that Peter is operating on limited resources (as seen in ''Civil War'' with his initial costume), and note that Peter originally came up with most of the suit's functions and innovations himself (such as the webbing and the adjusting eye lenses), whereas Stark just made them smaller and with more efficient material, and it's also refreshing in emphasizing a new tactical side to Spider-Man's crimefighting rather than the brawling and swinging approach shown in previous films which just focused on Peter's superpowers rather than his battle smarts.

* Bev Francis triggered one for female UsefulNotes/{{bodybuilding}} as a contestant in Miss Olympia 1991. She weighed in at ''160'' pounds (and is 5'5"). Previously, no other female contestant had ever been that muscular. She came in at second place, having lost by a single point and was leading after two rounds, only to be overtaken in the concluding rounds. The debate of "How much muscle on a woman is too much?” has raged ever since.

* Among editors, writers, and English teachers, the Oxford comma is SeriousBusiness. Some people think you should use it every time because some sentences (e.g. "I love my parents, Miley Cyrus and Leonardo Davinci") would be confusing, whereas others think it isn't necessary.
** And this is further complicated by the fact that there are circumstances where adding an Oxford comma can make things confusing too (e.g., "I love my dad, Leonardo DaVinci, and Miley Cyrus") or even circumstances where both arrangements are unclear.
* While the flag of UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} has a lot of fans for being a flag that represents the only Jewish state in the world. It also has detractors because of its association with the discrimination of Palestinians.

** Basically, ''any'' "How old does my kid need to be before I start X?" question is sure to provoke heated debates, with the leading two issues being weaning and potty training. Those who want parents to start early think the child's social development is at stake, while those who want them to start late think that starting early could be bad for the child physically.
** Pacifiers. Some people say they're bad for the kid's teeth or distract them from breastfeeding, while others are for pacifiers, since they believe they prevent SIDS.

** Any sort of punishment, from mild punishments like GoToYourRoom, all the way up to CorporalPunishment. Some people think that without these punishments, kids are being coddled and let off too easily, while others believe that the punishment could damage the kids' relationship with their parents.

** In general, there is a sharp divide amongst fans between those who prefer the more classical, artistic gymnastics characterized by the Soviets at their height, pointing to athletes like Ludmilla Tourischeva, Elena Mukhina, Oksana Omelianchik, and Shannon Miller as true all-arounders who blended solid tumbling with beautiful dance elements and elegant artistic expression in their choreography, and those who prefer the more powerful and explosive, but not as elegant, routines (particularly on floor and to a lesser extent balance beam) typified by athletes like Simone Biles, Larisa Iordache, and Aly Raisman. The two sides more or less hate each other's guts.

** Another debated question is what to do with tied scores at medal positions -- should athletes be allowed to tie for a medal, or should the judges apply a tie-breaker to decide who gets it? Supporters of the former point to such situations as He Kexin and Nastia Liukin's tie in the 2008 Olympic uneven bars final being broken down ''by judges individual scores'' rather than allow them to both get the gold[[note]]although this particular level of tiebreaking has since been eliminated, which is why Mai Murakami and Angelina Melnikova were allowed to tie for bronze on floor at the 2020 Games[[/note]] or Aly Raisman losing the bronze in the 2012 Olympic all-around to Aliya Mustafina in a tiebreaker despite Raisman arguably having a better competition (Mustafina had a fall while Raisman did not) as reasons that tiebreakers should be eliminated; those who favor breaking a tie will often point to the uneven bars final at the 2015 World Championships, in which four athletes (out of a field of eight) won gold in a four-way tie as an example of why tiebreaking is necessary.

** Another debated question is what to do with tied scores at medal positions -- should athletes be allowed to tie for a medal, or should the judges apply a tie-breaker to decide who gets it? Supporters of the former point to such situations as He Kexin and Nastia Liukin's tie in the 2008 Olympic uneven bars final being broken down ''by judges individual scores'' rather than allow them to both get the gold[[note]]although this particular level of tiebreaking has since been eliminated, which is why Mai Murakami and Angelina Melnikova were allowed to both get bronze medals on floor at the 2020 Games[[/note]] or Aly Raisman losing the bronze in the 2012 Olympic all-around to Aliya Mustafina in a tiebreaker despite Raisman arguably having a better competition (Mustafina had a fall while Raisman did not) as reasons that tiebreakers should be eliminated; those who favor breaking a tie will often point to the uneven bars final at the 2015 World Championships, in which four athletes (out of a field of eight) won gold in a four-way tie as an example of why tiebreaking is necessary.

** Skin tone is an even more touchy topic. Some people insist that people should only cosplay characters of their race, or who at least [[AmbiguouslyBrown seem to be]]. White people playing Asian characters is sometimes allowed in these debates because the characters '[[{{mukokuseki}} don't look Asian]]' though it's not unknown to be against that. Others consider this racist and you should be able to cosplay whomever you want.
** Whether light skinned people can darken their skin for cosplay is ''very'' controversial; some see it as simply trying to replicate a character, others feel that it's too evocative of {{Blackface}} for comfort.

* ''Pinball/WhoaNellieBigJuicyMelons'' has created flame wars all over the Internet on two fronts: The first is its thoroughly sexist artwork, featuring the {{buxom|IsBetter}} daughter of a farmer and men all over the playfield gawking at her. There are some people who are disgusted and revolted at this artwork (men and women alike), and there are people who love it. The other front is its price: It is a PaletteSwap of a machine from 40 years ago (''Continental'', to be precise), meaning it has a simple layout, simple rules, and is electronically simple inside, but at US$6,500, is more expensive than modern-looking games with modern gameplay and audio.

** At the end of the book, we learn that [[DistantFinale everyone got married]] and [[BabiesEverAfter had babies]]. This ending has some detractors, who feel like the flash-forward was jarring, having everyone procreate (or having so many {{Dead Guy Junior}}s) was unrealistic and sappy, some of the pairings (particularly Ron and Hermione) were bad couples, or that more information was needed (for example, what are these kids like in terms of personality?). Others enjoyed the ending for giving a hopeful EarnYourHappyEnding conclusion to the [[TheWoobie heroes]] and thought it wrapped things up well.

* The addition of the Designated Hitter[[note]]A player who bats instead of the pitcher, and who does not have a field position[[/note]] in one of UsefulNotes/{{Baseball}}'s two major leagues caused (and still causes) divisions among fans. Some appreciate the increased chances for the ball to be put into play by the hitter, while others decry the loss of a strategic element in deciding whether to replace a pitcher.

** The question of what the best format for overtime is has been a contentious one, as people have begun questioning the modified sudden-death format is the best way or if something else should take its place. Those opposed to the current system will cite situations, particularly in the playoffs, where MVP-caliber quarterbacks (including two actual MVP winners in Aaron Rodgers in 2014 and Patrick Mahomes in 2018) weren't even given a chance to win the game for their team due to the opponent getting the ball first and scoring a touchdown. Proponents of the current system, meanwhile, will counter that defense is part of the game too and that it should be on the second team's defense to prevent this scenario and give their offense a shot.

** Within the film medium there's the whole debate over when is dark, bleak, and depressing, too dark, bleak and depressing? And the use of the DownerEnding... Some are of the opinion that people are completely missing the point and that horror is SUPPOSED to be dark, bleak, and depressing. Others take the view that using such a limiting definition and emotional palate only serves to make everything ultimately seem exactly the same. NecessaryWeasel, and AnthropicPrinciple plays a HUGE part in these debates. The disagreements over bleak and dark tone seem to be mostly a matter of personal taste more than anything.

** A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but TooBleakStoppedCaring. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or [[IdiotPlot complete idiots]], to the point where it's [[EightDeadlyWords hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying]], (although for many [[CatharsisFactor that's part of the appeal]]). On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic cast (who are often a family as well, for added pathos) as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from ShootTheDog to MoralEventHorizon (as far as the writers, creators etc being accused of crossing it themselves... unfairly or not) to CrossesTheLineTwice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being DracoInLeatherPants. Creators of horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) like to be broadly appealing; you can't have a popular horror film where {{expies}} of ''Series/TheWaltons'' and [[Series/TheCosbyShow the Cosbys]] are brutally murdered by the villain. Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both missing the point of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre. Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly [[{{Irony}} ironic]] considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters.

* While many shows on Creator/{{Nickelodeon}} are prone to this, the network ''itself'' has been prone to this for ''years''. 1) When it started to [[SeasonalRot "decline"]], which is usually chosen as 1986, 1990, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009. 2) When it started to get [[GrowingTheBeard "good"]], which many people say is in 1985 when Fred Seibert and Alan Goodman saved the network, 1991 when the Nicktoons debuted, 1999 when ''WesternAnimation/SpongeBobSquarePants'' debuted, or many different years. 3) When it started to get [[WinBACKTheCrowd "better"]], which is often divided by many people with real no specific time. Lastly, 4) if the network is still "good", or keeps getting "worse and worse".
* Creator/CartoonNetwork is basically in the same position as Nickelodeon right now. Either it [[GrowingTheBeard really hit its stride]] with the Powerhouse era and [[SeasonalRot went to hell]] in 2004 with the Cartoon Network city era, really got good with the Advertising/{{CN City}} era and started to decline in 2007 with the Fall era, or got bad in 2009 with the debut of Creator/CNReal. Others will say it hit its stride with the Powerhouse era, declined, but not by a considerable margin, in the CN City era, fully cemented into its DorkAge with the Fall era and reached its nadir in 2009 with the debut of CN Real. Another huge debate is if it's still sucking to this day, or it got [[WinBACKTheCrowd a whole lot better]] in 2010, and continues to get better.

* ''Film/AWedding1978'': Depending on who you ask, ''A Wedding'' is either a solid Creator/RobertAltman outing or one of his worst films. Some people consider it to be a satirical masterpiece with a great EnsembleCast, while others view it as an unfunny film which has too many characters to do any of them justice.

* The [[ScienceMarchesOn constantly changing image of]] dinosaurs often sparks debates. Old-school dinosaur geeks that grew up in the ''Franchise/JurassicPark''-era display a fierce harshness towards the scientifically now-accepted fact that, for example, raptors and would have been feathered or at least fuzzy, and criticize works that depict dinosaurs as realistic animals instead of reptilian movie-monsters. Meanwhile hard-core paleontology fans, knowing that the fossil evidence clearly supports their side, simply dismiss these people (often rudely). Even among them, though, there is a serious break when it comes to how close works about dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures) should stay to the known facts. Is it okay for non-scientific movies to still depict [[RaptorAttack raptors with scales]], or unacceptable? Should artists only draw what we can reliably infer from the fossils, or is wild speculation okay as long as it doesn't contradict the evidence? Arguments frequently occur because many paleontologists and general paleo-nerds treat their obsession as very SeriousBusiness, and don't want mass-media misrepresenting their work.

* Horror fans seems to be split over the quality of audacious foreign horror films when compared to American horror films. They're either refreshing and daring, or gory pretentious crap.
** Among horror fans there's a sub-debate on what should be considered a Horror film as oppose to a Thriller and vice versa. Some feel that Thrillers are neutered horror films made for people who can't hack "Real" horror.
** Another divide is over the style and approach of making horror Films/Books, etc... Some prefer the subtlety of NothingIsScarier, MaybeMagicMaybeMundane, and DoingInTheWizard approach (Exemplified by the people who thought ''Film/TheDescent'' was good "Until the crawlers showed up"), Some preferring the ThroughTheEyesOfMadness approach, some prefer the {{Gorn}} approach. Or perhaps some prefer the AttackOfTheKillerWhatever and or AttackOfThe50FootWhatever. Some even take the diplomatic approach and prefer all of the above.
** Within the film medium there's the whole debate over when is dark, bleak, and depressing, too dark, bleak and depressing? And the use of the DownerEnding... Some are of the opinion that people are completely missing the point and that horror is SUPPOSED to be dark, bleak, and depressing. Others take the view that using such a limiting definition and emotional palate only serves to make everything ultimately seem exactly the same. NecessaryWeasel, and AnthropicPrinciple plays a HUGE part in these debates.
** A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but TooBleakStoppedCaring. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or complete idiots, to the point where it's hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying. Although for many [[CatharsisFactor that's part of the appeal]]. On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic family as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from ShootTheDog to MoralEventHorizon (as far as the writers, creators etc being accused of crossing it themselves...unfairly or not) to CrossesTheLineTwice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being DracoInLeatherPants. Horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) likes to be broadly appealing. You can't have a popular horror film where expies of ''Series/TheWaltons'' and [[Series/TheCosbyShow The Cosbys]] are brutally murdered by the Psycho/Demon/Werewolf/Vampire/Alien. Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both missing the point of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre. Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly ironic considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters.
*** The disagreements over bleak and dark tone seems to be mostly a matter of personal taste than anything.
*** Same with having actual ghosts/demons/aliens etc..in the film. Some people think that's what makes a real horror film while others think it's a cheap gimmick.
** And whether or not to use humor and comedy. Does it add to the movie, and mood or destroys it?
** For the Literature medium there are those who prefer the short and simple stories to the 900 page Doorstops. Mostly because they think Horror stories are much more effective as short stories, as bigger books tends to drag.
** There's also a debate over perceived attitudes towards the genre. For instance on message boards there will be a fan who'll be like "Yaaay they're making Terror On Cliched Street part 20!", and another disgruntled one who'll be like "*ugh* Hollywood has run out of ideas". The latter thinking the former is everything that is wrong with horror today. While the former think that the latter group are a bunch of pretentious Jerkasses who think foreign horror is the best thing since indoor plumbing, and is taking the genre too seriously. While the latter fires back by saying they're the ones that are giving horror fans a "bad name" (and by extension the whole genre).
** People argue that if it doesn't have any supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi elements it's not a real horror film. Some think adding too much sci-fi and technobable ruins the genre, likely a microcosm of the Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane approach where they use science or sci-fi to explain away the paranormal/supernatural (which some see as a cop out). Same thing can be said for adding in action
*** In addition to the above is it a bad idea to try and explain everything in a horror story/plot. Or is it best to leave it mysterious and vague?, Or is that a WriterCopOut?

** There's also accusations of people RunningTheAsylum for the worse, By keeping all of the arguably negative stuff around because they think it's the norm for the genre. Creating a horror version of Sci Fi Ghetto.
** Found Footage horror is very polarizing among horror fans. Regardless of how well made they might be.
** It doesn't help that the horror genre is subjective (and polarizing) to begin with.
* Speaking of horror genre, there seems to be a divide on how to make zombie films/books/shows, and what makes a good zombie story as oppose to a generic zombie story. Should they be humorous zombie killing action pieces? Or dramatic, thought provoking, Socio-Political commentary and or deep character studies? Or alternatively dark, bleak, survival horror, disaster stories ala Series/BlackSummer, Literature/WorldWarZ etc? Or some compromise hybrid of all the above?
** As mentioned in the 28 Days Later example, what does or does not constitute a proper cinema Zombie is up for big debate. Can Zombies be fast or does that fly in the face of what a Zombie should be? Are they mindless walking corpses with no goal other than to eat the living, or should they have a deeper level that allows them to form basic plans and organize? Are they caused by magic? toxic waste? a virus? Numerous fans will insist that changing a single element destroys the Zombie title.

* What should be considered Porn or "nude/erotic art"... [[TakeAThirdOption or both]]. If there's a line, where should the distinction be drawn? Keep in mind erotic art can be very pornographic as well. In fact the line is so blurred some think there isn't a difference anymore.

** Moral Philosophy/Ethics in general. Okay, the debate about what's morally right and wrong is going to be cause for a lot of arguments in near enough every academic and professional field, but in philosophy, it's divided even more significantly among followers of different schools of ethical thought. Is the best/most accurate theory a consequentialist one like utilitarianism, holding that the consequences of an action dictate whether it's right? A deontological one, holding that the intentions dictate how ethical an action is? Virtue Ethics based on ideals and personalities? Various other theories based on everything from social/political theories to attempts at scientific ones? And then there's the religious side of things and the various churches and groups making up the likes of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and what they each say are morally right and wrong...

** There is also some debate over whether therapy must be validated/evidence-based, like like cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy and family-based treatment, with some saying that only relying on things that have been proven to actually work is unrealistic for a real world, clinical setting, and that the view ignores the value of experience/anecdotes, and the other side insisting that mental health practitioners act like health professionals. It doesn't help that the group against evidence-based-psychology is mainly made up of therapists, who have lower accreditation requirements than psychologist and psychiatrists, and that the evidence-based camp also says that practitioners should make their success rates available so potential clients can judge what's worth paying for.

** Dog breeds in general. Other species like cats, fish, and horses have similar debates but dogs are by far the most discussed. With documentaries like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" many have come to question many breeds. Pugs, Border Collies, Basset Hounds, Bull Terriers, and German Shepherds are some of the most commonly debated. Working bred dogs vs Show dogs, whether dog breeds are an outdated and irrelevant concept, how to fix breeds faults, whether certain breeds should become extinct, whether certain breeds are inherently dangerous, etc

** The topic of outdoor cats within the cat community. Opponents consider the practice abusive and/or neglectful, in addition to being bad for the environment and dangerous for the cats themselves; the abuse/neglect argument is less prevalent when discussing indoor-outdoor cats (those who live inside a home, but are allowed to go outside), but the dangers to the cat and to other wildlife like birds still apply. However, some on the other side think it's neglectful to keep cats indoors 24/7.

** Veganism vs Vegetarianism is the most common debate. Vegetarians will still eat eggs, dairy, and honey--animal products that don't require killing the animal--while vegans will not. The animal welfare aspects of eggs and milk are commonly debated, as are how healthy or dangerous being vegan is.

** Anytime a MaybeMagicMaybeMundane horror movie turns out to be RealAfterAll. Case in point The Last Exorcism.

*** The famous scene [[spoiler:where Peter gets trapped under rubble, a scene clearly inspired by ''If This Be My Destiny'', one of the most famous storylines in Spider-Man history]]. The division is between people who think it's an amazing scene, probably the best in the entire film, and those who think it completely felt flat on its face. [[spoiler:Fans commend it for the reference to the comics and for Holland's acting, who totally sold Peter's state of mind in that scene: a 15 year old child who thinks is going to die and panics accordingly. Detractors, however, think that the scene wasn't thematically earned, and failed to capture what made the scene great in the comics (this last part ties in directly with the previous entry about the absence of the power/responsibility theme--Peter originally lifted the rubble to reach Aunt May's lifesaving medication, thinking that he couldn't fail her like he did Uncle Ben--since they think the whole "If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it" line doesn't fit the concept of Spider-Man, whether from the comics or from ''Homecoming'' itself, and thus is not deemed a good thematic substitute)]].

** At the end of the book, we learn that [[DistantFinale everyone got married]] and [[BabiesEverAfter had babies]]. This ending has some detractors, who feel like the flash-forward was jarring, having everyone procreate (or having so many {{Dead Guy Junior}}s) was unrealistic and [[TastesLikeDiabetes sappy]], some of the pairings (particularly Ron and Hermione) were bad couples, or that more information was needed (for example, what are these kids like in terms of personality?). Others enjoyed the ending for giving a hopeful EarnYourHappyEnding conclusion to the [[TheWoobie heroes]] and thought it wrapped things up well.

** At the end of the book, we learn that [[DistantFinale everyone got married]] and [[BabiesEverAfter had babies]]. This ending has some detractors, who feel like the flash-forward was jarring, having everyone procreate (or having so many {{Dead Guy Junior}}s) was unrealistic, some of the pairings (particularly Ron and Hermione) were bad couples, or that more information was needed (for example, what are these kids like in terms of personality?). Others enjoyed the ending and thought it wrapped things up well.

** The transition from one Edition to another would always attract debate over whether things were fixed or not, but none were as heated as the transition from Seventh to Eighth Edition. Eighth Edition basically changed everything about how ''40K' was played, ranging from how weapon damage was calculated to vehicles losing armor facing and gaining strength and toughness values to make them more like Monstrous Creatures. Either the transition is a refreshing change that removed a lot of bloat that slowed the game down, or a travesty that gutted ''40K'' of any semblance of tactical nuance for the sake of appealing to newcomers.