Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I see post after post from players struggling to win against a certain army, or even with a certain army. Time and again I see the same advise over and over. But the truth is, most of that advise is bad advise. Not because it sucks in general, or the person giving it doesn't know what they are talking about (odds are it works well for them), but rather everyone's play style and ability to adapt to a sitaution on the fly is different. So here's my advice to any player having problems winning with any army.

1) First, understand that some people will simply be better at this game then you are. It's not a slam on you as a player, but the simple truth is we all have gifts that are different from one another. Some people play this game and can win with just about any list. Yes there are armies and combinations that work better together than others thus making your game easier or harder to win, but that could be said about many aspects of life.

2) Don't worry so much about tournament winning armies to start with. These types of play are almost always going to won by the dominate tactician in the group. A good list only gets you so far, knowing how to deploy it, assign proper targets, and counter threats will win the day. That's not to say there's zero chance a new player can't win, there may be no real dominant tactician, or you may be that person despite your lack of experience. New or new-ish players should see a tournament as a good chance to learn and have fun, if you win a prize, that's just gravy.

3) Figure out what play style fits you best and go with it. If you're the kind of player that likes to get into close combat, all the advice in the world on how to build a shooting army will do you no good. Play to what best suits you and you will have more fun and more success. To that end, that may mean the army you currently play really isn't the best fit for you, which mean you may have to look at trading out your army for another, in fact it may take 3 or 4 tries to really find an army you really enjoy and fits your play style. But then again, it may simply mean you just need to try/buy different units for your army. ask your opponents if it is okay for you to proxy your minis to try out different things. Most people won't mind, I think we've all been there at some time.If you prefer to field a crap ton of shooting troops, then perhaps an army like Khorne Daemonkin isn't the way to go, no matter how much you like that Bloodthirster

4) every gaming environment is different, so stop playing to what the internet tells you. every FLGS has different players with different armies and play styles. I hate the idea of having a 'standard list', each army, each opponent you face will present different challenges, thus you should adapt your army accordingly. I would not field the same army against an ork hoard that I would a Tau Suit army.That being said, your best best is to aim to have multiple options when you play. Granted not every player has hundreds or even thousands of dollars to sink into their army, but ebay can be your friend if you don't mind some ugly minis. If you are not familure with your opponent and his/her play style, that's fine, at least think about the army they are playing and try to build your according to that. This means you'll need to look into each army and take some cliff notes. See what is popular with each army and build to counter that.

5) Even though I suggest fielding an army that is designed to fight a specific opponent, that does not mean you cannot have some core 'go to' units. As I also said, play to your play style. This means each game, expecially the losses, should be viewed as a learning experience. What did you d right? More importantly, what did you do wrong? What units did your opponent field that gave you a real hassle? If your opponent fielded some units that really gave you a hard time, look for ways to counter that, then look for options to fit that in your army. If you find your army is really having problems doing something, look for ways to counter that problem too. Asking for advise is great, but when you do, try to have specific problems in mind. For example, if you are a marine player who absolutely must put his troops into close combat, look for ways to get into combat as soon as possible and ways to minimize Overwatch issues.

6) Understand that some players are going to trounce you no matter what. They have their army down pat, they've worked out all the kinks, or they just have a knack for these types of game. Simple truth is, if you sit down to play Chess with Garry Kasparov, you're going to loose. And then there are some players that just are not worth playing. They either complain so much they ruin any game, or they play the cheesiest Munchkin armies they can possibly find. While I believe every list is beatable, sometimes it's just not worth the effort. If the game or opponent is going to drag you down, just don't bother with it.

7) every army is beatable, every player is beatable. Some combinations may be harder than others, but everything falls. I also believe that any army can beat any other army, some selections may not be the greatest choice, but it's still doable.

8) All that said, eventually you will find your niche in the game, you will find either an army set-up or a few core units that just really work for you, maybe not every time, but enough to be worth playing time and again. If/when you do, stick with it, there's nothing wrong with using the same units over and over again if they work for you. Just understand, that may mean you've become one of those players who feels nothing but the most powerful units (A.K.A the Cheese player), which may mean less and less people will play you. But using a 'core ' force that is the same in every game is just fine. Afterall, the point is to win, have fun, and enjoy the time playing. Hopefully that means you're also being a good sport about it.

I have a hard time believing that being "tactical" trumps strong units and rng (random number generation).

Not saying there is not a BIT of strategy to it, but I have noticed it comes down to randomness of dice throws, and non-randomness of strong units in 40k over strategy.

Might just be me.

Vaxx wrote:
I have a hard time believing that being "tactical" trumps strong units and rng (random number generation).

Not saying there is not a BIT of strategy to it, but I have noticed it comes down to randomness of dice throws, and non-randomness of strong units in 40k over strategy.

Might just be me.

I'd say it's 50/50. Having a strong list and good dice rolling is about 2/3 of it, but not making dumb mistakes is the other 1/3. I've lost several games I should have won due to bad tactical decisions (engaging the wrong units, not knowing when to run away).

Having a good mind for tactics does trump most everything else. Dice rolls do create a good bit of randomness that can make or break a game, but if you don't understand how to really use your units and your opponent does, a good list won't help much. I've seen bad players with good lists loose solidly and good players with bad lists pull wins out like a champ.

I have found that, while bad dice can spoil good tactics, good tactics can compensate for spoiled dice.

When I make a decision in-game, I usually mentally jog through the mathematical averages and statistics before making a decision so I can plan around the most expected outcome. Sometimes that outcome is not what happens (dice being what they are) but usually it is close enough that only a tiny amount of adjustment in the future is required.

Only a few times have I seen a bad player beat a skilled one because of dice; conversely, I have seen many good players win games (sometimes decisively) even when everyone agrees the dice were pretty severely NOT in their favour.

Vaxx wrote:
I have a hard time believing that being "tactical" trumps strong units and rng (random number generation).

Not saying there is not a BIT of strategy to it, but I have noticed it comes down to randomness of dice throws, and non-randomness of strong units in 40k over strategy.

Might just be me.

I would argue that part of the tactical/strategic aspect of the game knowing the statistics/probability of these dice roles and working to improve those odds for yourself and reducing them for your opponent. The simple truth is a squad of 10 guardsmen wont do much against anything, 50 guardsmen on the other hand will. The more dice rolls you are making, the more times you will succeed (with 'offensive' dice rolling), the more dice rolls your opponent is making, the more times he will fail (I'm think armour saves here, but applies to anything he is rolling when they are 'defensive' dice rolls).

Of course with all dice rolls, some people can get lucky, but the more dice rolls, the more it balances out and the more the odds matter.

Tactics are you most important part of the game. I've seen many a game won/lost because of tactical failures. After games if you usually go: what unit should I buy instead of how should I have played differently you re doing it wrong.

People talking about luck reminds me of people in MTG talking about too decking (getting the lucky card you need). Good players will tell you you have to be in a position to get lucky.

Dice are the same for everyone, but playing to minimize bad luck is a skill.

I must admit that after 15 years of miniature gaming under my belt it only took me a fraction of that time to realise warhammer fantasy/40k are monstrously bad designed games. The only advice I'd actually take serious from anybody would be veterans that guided new players to avoid making costly mistakes, like buying/painting 2 full squads of assault marines or modelling that expensive boxed set of HWS with mortars because you think that's what's cool, only to realise that not only are those subpar but they exists and are known as a tier of units that can be categorised as a complete waste of time/money and can literally handicap your list by their mere presence due to horrendous internal balance.

As for your advice:

1) First, understand that some people will simply be better at this game then you are. It's not a slam on you as a player, but the simple truth is we all have gifts that are different from one another. Some people play this game and can win with just about any list. Yes there are armies and combinations that work better together than others thus making your game easier or harder to win, but that could be said about many aspects of life.

I will certainly admit that some people take better decisions than other and by that extension can be categorised as "better players" but I remain skeptic about the whole army thing. The best player in the world wouldn't win with a pure harlequin army against a gladius detachment even against an utterly mediocre player, so the entire concept of winning with "just about any list" only ever holds water once we establish that there're certain parameters competitive lists must abide with, so a better way of saying this would be that a good player, with a list that is optimised for the specific tournament, specific missions and the specific meta, in an environment of opponents that brings army lists that are optimised with the same criteria would indeed have an improved chance of winning and even then there're factors like massive RNG and terrible rock/scissors/paper matchups.

2) Don't worry so much about tournament winning armies to start with. These types of play are almost always going to won by the dominate tactician in the group. A good list only gets you so far, knowing how to deploy it, assign proper targets, and counter threats will win the day. That's not to say there's zero chance a new player can't win, there may be no real dominant tactician, or you may be that person despite your lack of experience. New or new-ish players should see a tournament as a good chance to learn and have fun, if you win a prize, that's just gravy.

Good advice, even though I certainly wouldn't advice any new player to enter in a tournament unless it's a beginners tournament or similar. It's simply a waste of time for every body if you get stomped without realising why and what errors you made, you're also essentially giving away maximum points and it isn't entertaining for your opponent either to table someone with little effort, especially if they came to a tournament hoping to get challenged. Perhaps I'm biased but with my experience with fantasy and Infinity, 40k (especially when played with sparse terrain that tournaments are infamous for) is simply a joke when it comes to deployment and with so many weapons that can cross the entire table, movement/deployment is simply put nowhere NEAR as important as in fantasy or infinity.

3) Figure out what play style fits you best and go with it. If you're the kind of player that likes to get into close combat, all the advice in the world on how to build a shooting army will do you no good. Play to what best suits you and you will have more fun and more success. To that end, that may mean the army you currently play really isn't the best fit for you, which mean you may have to look at trading out your army for another, in fact it may take 3 or 4 tries to really find an army you really enjoy and fits your play style. But then again, it may simply mean you just need to try/buy different units for your army. ask your opponents if it is okay for you to proxy your minis to try out different things. Most people won't mind, I think we've all been there at some time.If you prefer to field a crap ton of shooting troops, then perhaps an army like Khorne Daemonkin isn't the way to go, no matter how much you like that Bloodthirs

I can certainly vouch for playing armies that you like the looks of and the play style but telling someone who is new to hobby to get a rule book, dice, templates, a codex and possibly a supplement on top of the army they are building, only to inform them that they may need to look at 3 or 4 other armies with expensive books and models is simply way too daunting for anyone. I'd urge any new comers to really embrace the large warhammer community, who are almost always very passionate about giving advice, to really find the best fit for you.

4) every gaming environment is different, so stop playing to what the internet tells you. every FLGS has different players with different armies and play styles. I hate the idea of having a 'standard list', each army, each opponent you face will present different challenges, thus you should adapt your army accordingly. I would not field the same army against an ork hoard that I would a Tau Suit army.That being said, your best best is to aim to have multiple options when you play. Granted not every player has hundreds or even thousands of dollars to sink into their army, but ebay can be your friend if you don't mind some ugly minis. If you are not familure with your opponent and his/her play style, that's fine, at least think about the army they are playing and try to build your according to that. This means you'll need to look into each army and take some cliff notes. See what is popular with each army and build to counter that.

So what about pick up games or tournaments? I'm not really familiar with the concept of meeting with people, asking what army they play, build a list against said army and THEN proceed to play against them. I'm only familiar with such a concept in that it's called list tailoring and, if memory serves me, is very much frowned upon.
This may be anecdotal but in my FLGS they often play GK Nemesis Knights spam, Dark Eldar and mechanised Imperial Guard and all of those lists plays very differently, so statements like "See what is popular with each army and build to counter that" are just blank statements that offers no real advice. Yes you can show up, ask the opponent about his list and list tailor and he'll never play with you again or you could bring a horrible hybrid lists that wants to pretend it can deal with MC, TEQ, Skimmers, mass AV12+ spam and GEQ at the same time, which would be a horrible list.

5) Even though I suggest fielding an army that is designed to fight a specific opponent, that does not mean you cannot have some core 'go to' units. As I also said, play to your play style. This means each game, expecially the losses, should be viewed as a learning experience. What did you d right? More importantly, what did you do wrong? What units did your opponent field that gave you a real hassle? If your opponent fielded some units that really gave you a hard time, look for ways to counter that, then look for options to fit that in your army. If you find your army is really having problems doing something, look for ways to counter that problem too. Asking for advise is great, but when you do, try to have specific problems in mind. For example, if you are a marine player who absolutely must put his troops into close combat, look for ways to get into combat as soon as possible and ways to minimize Overwatch issues.

So you literally are suggesting list tailoring.. okay..? Again, you talk about this list, as if it's build around a core and then it's merely a matter about fine tuning it to handle every threat and cover every weaknesses and saying things like "Counter this!" and "counter that too!". The rock/scissor/paper nature of 40k doesn't really allow for an army to spreading itself too thin. If something works, spam it. If you have 3 tactical squads you don't field them with 1 flamer/combi, 1 plasma/combi and 1 melta/combi and expect to be well equipped to handle hordes, vehicle spam or MC, the truth is you are ill equipped for ALL of those targets and will lose because of it.
It also goes without saying that you'd want to get into CC ASAP, I can't think of a situation where it's advantageous to let a shooting army have an entire turn to vaporise your assault units or even get counter charged and there really isn't any way to counter such a random mechanic as Overwatch, unless you have pinning mechanics or some other special rule, besides from the fact that you could perhaps shoot a couple of dudes but that would also jeopardise your success of assaulting.

6) Understand that some players are going to trounce you no matter what. They have their army down pat, they've worked out all the kinks, or they just have a knack for these types of game. Simple truth is, if you sit down to play Chess with Garry Kasparov, you're going to loose. And then there are some players that just are not worth playing. They either complain so much they ruin any game, or they play the cheesiest Munchkin armies they can possibly find. While I believe every list is beatable, sometimes it's just not worth the effort. If the game or opponent is going to drag you down, just don't bother with it.

Please.. this chess comparison so many people use about warhammer fantasy/40k needs to die. Also, why is playing a "cheesy munchkin army" a bad thing? Fun is a subjective thing and if a player decides to challenge himself to make a competitive list, why should he be antagonised for doing so? If you dislike the power level his list brings then why don't you direct your discontent towards GW, rather than a player who merely plays with the rules he is provided?

7) every army is beatable, every player is beatable. Some combinations may be harder than others, but everything falls. I also believe that any army can beat any other army, some selections may not be the greatest choice, but it's still doable.

Doesn't this literally contradict your statement above?

8) All that said, eventually you will find your niche in the game, you will find either an army set-up or a few core units that just really work for you, maybe not every time, but enough to be worth playing time and again. If/when you do, stick with it, there's nothing wrong with using the same units over and over again if they work for you. Just understand, that may mean you've become one of those players who feels nothing but the most powerful units (A.K.A the Cheese player), which may mean less and less people will play you. But using a 'core ' force that is the same in every game is just fine. Afterall, the point is to win, have fun, and enjoy the time playing. Hopefully that means you're also being a good sport about it.

Ah.. there it is, the rant about the "ewohl cheese player" so to avoid becoming one, you made a guideline how YOU think the game should be played. I don't know if you know this but I can assure you that the "cheese" player won't find less people to play with, he will simply find other opponents who share his mindset about the game because destroying an opponent on turn 2 or less, because they brought a subpar list, gets super boring super fast and most importantly (especially for competitive minded players) they will never improve or learn anything to better themselves which is sorta the point about being competitive.

Really, as a 20+ year gamer you should be more of an ambassador of the game, rather than making guidelines that fits your personal criteria and stigmatise certain groups of competitive minded people with derogatory terms.

 Zewrath wrote:
I'm not really familiar with the concept of meeting with people, asking what army they play, build a list against said army and THEN proceed to play against them. I'm only familiar with such a concept in that it's called list tailoring and, if memory serves me, is very much frowned upon.

Have you never played a constructed scenario?

You absolutely need to build both armies to mission parameters and terrain.

Honestly I think cooperative customization plays to the best side of tabletop gaming, look at this historical reconstruction of Stalingrad using 40k.

https://goatronium.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/orkingrad-the-battle/

Tactics in 40k is essentially finding the best ways to make the odds lean in your favour. There's many ways to do that of course and some ways will be much more effective than others.

Vaxx wrote:
I have a hard time believing that being "tactical" trumps strong units and rng (random number generation).

Not saying there is not a BIT of strategy to it, but I have noticed it comes down to randomness of dice throws, and non-randomness of strong units in 40k over strategy.

Might just be me.

I haven't read all of this, so I apologize if what I said has already been said.

I consider myself quite a competent DE player, and it is hard to dispute that DE are one of the worst armies in the game right now, and in my somewhat competitive meta, I can do well. I have beat meta eldar, daemons, and a bit of very strong lists, tau are always a hard counter and almost always an auto lose for me.

So I will say its about 50/50, some matchups just aren't good, they just can't work (IG vs eldar, GK vs gladius, HQ vs tau, etc etc) and its very difficult to win, but those are only occasional, and I think that if you have some lucky dice rolls and play to the mission, it is possible to win.

 Fruzzle wrote:
Tactics are you most important part of the game. I've seen many a game won/lost because of tactical failures. After games if you usually go: what unit should I buy instead of how should I have played differently you re doing it wrong.

People talking about luck reminds me of people in MTG talking about too decking (getting the lucky card you need). Good players will tell you you have to be in a position to get lucky.

Dice are the same for everyone, but playing to minimize bad luck is a skill.

This with MTG, also applies to 40k. The likelihood of you getting that exact card you need when you only have 1 in your deck, 1 in 60, when you have 4, 1 in 15 - you have effectively gone from playing with a 60 card deck to a 15 card deck, 7 of which you will draw on turn one (yes, I know it gets more intricate than this with ratios, but this is a good starting point when teaching new players about deck building).

The same principles apply to 40k, if you are looking to build a competitive army, you build it with the odds stacked in your favour. If you know you are going to be facing a tank army, you put lots of things in your army to deal with armour, fighting a hoard army, templates become your friend.

Ravingbantha wrote:
I would not field the same army against an ork hoard that I would a Tau Suit army.

This is called list tailoring, and it's generally considered to be extremely poor behavior. Don't do it.

As someone who has spent sometime looking into how armies compete, Skill is the number 1 factor, but it's not the only factor. Winning is a combination of three things, List, Luck, and skill.

Skill is hard to quantify, but my working explanation is that skill is knowing what to do and when to do it. In your FLGS the best player will do well no matter what he is playing, but as the pool of potential players increase so to do the odds of a good player fighting someone on a similar skill level. Skill as it were has diminishing returns, the difference between a novice and middling player is very noticeable on the table, the difference between a middling player and a good one is far less noticeable. Here is why, skill is about not making mistakes, mistakes are missed opportunities where you could have made a better decision, and can vary in severity. A novice might make 20 mistakes in a game, and middling player 10, and a good player 5, each of these arbitrary skill groups is quantifiably twice as good as the last, and each skill level is half as noticeable. When you are within a game or two of the winners table at large tournaments like the LVO, the number of mistakes players will make tend to be very small. Without opportunities for advantage provided by your opponent's mistakes, you are dependent on your list to make opportunities for you.

In prior conversations on this board about this topic, people jumped to conclusions because they want simple answers, list is everything or skill is everything, but reality resist simplification. Malcolm Gladwell makes an analogy in Outliers that I think is apt; Basketball players generally need to be tall. But a player who is 6’8” is not necessarily better than a player who is 6’5”. Once a basketball player is tall enough (say the “threshold” is about 6’0” or 6’1”), other things begin to matter. He is tall, but is he fast? agile? good under pressure? Skill in 40k works similar to that, it's very important up to a point, and after that point other things begin to matter more, specifically what list you brought. So that's why at the top levels of play list is clearly the defining factor, but people's subjective experience tells a different story. The people in the winners circle at the LVO and the like are all at that good enough level of skill that list becomes the defining factor, but the people in your local meta will probably not be at that level, and so skill seems to be the more important factor. I know it's a messy unsatisfying answer, but it's the one that seems to fit the evidence best.

Lists win matches. Players win tournaments.

 Runic wrote:
Lists win matches. Players win tournaments.

Yeah that is kind of what I was talking about, a good list won't carry you if you are below the skill cap, and no player in ITC could consistently win using a majority blood angels list. Reality is messy and defies six word definitions.

What I took from OP's post was:
- some people will beat you no matter what but everyone is beatable?
- list tailoring should be encouraged
- playing a strong army makes you a bad person, you should try to make a good army but not too good because that's bad.

Really not sure what his point was on the first one and the second is terrible advice - list tailoring is a crutch that hinders learning list construction. The third speaks for itself.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
What I took from OP's post was:
- some people will beat you no matter what but everyone is beatable?
- list tailoring should be encouraged
- playing a strong army makes you a bad person, you should look try to make a good army but not too good because that's bad.

Really not sure what his point was on the first one and the second is terrible advice - list tailoring is a crutch that hinders learning list construction. The third speaks for itself.

Have to agree with this. What exactly are you going for about some people just can't be beat but you can beat everyone? I'm really confused. I will say that I'm naturally bad at the game, I can reach the ideal strategy but it's just not fast enough (I don't want to take 30 minute turns). There are some people I really just can't beat unless they bring a sub-par list intentionally (which some of my friends do) or I, by random coincidence, run a hard counter to their list. Which comes to point 2 and 3, I refuse to list tailor, and point three, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them if they don't want to tone their lists down. I can still have fun even if I get whomped, bring the cheesiest, stinkiest Limburger if that's your thing. Over time most people learn that I suck and change their lists, but you can't hold it against them if they like that list and it just happens to be strong or it's all they own (I have a sub-par DA list just because I mostly own DW).

Seriously though, don't list tailor. That is what makes you a bad person. If I know I'm playing an ork player I'm not going to suddenly run all punishers and wyverns, that makes you a poopy bumhole. And very few people like those. I intentionally have a few lists prepared if I'm having a casual game and let the dice gods decide what I'm going to run, or ask my opponent what general list they want to play against (DW, general DA, my collection of librarians, foot guard or mech guard) if I know it's just a friendly game. If I know I'm up against that guy that does list tailor I'll tell him I'm bringing guard or whatever but roll off if I'm running mech or foot after he's picked his list. Or I just won't play him, because list tailoring is the lowest of lows you can go to unless your opponent specifically asks for a handicap and wants you to do it.

List tailoring is a key tactic for the casual at all costs mafia - it lets them win games without taking a "cheesy" army (because it's essential that they maintain an advantage whilst still being able to discourage others from bringing effective lists) and it prevents them actually having to learn proper army construction.

I think instead of list tailoring he was maybe trying to say something like learn your meta and play to it rather than what the internet says is the best. Not everyone would be bringing perfect lists which is the assumption when talking about the global meta on the net, rather in practice the local meta comes down to a mix of that chatter, people's play style, models they like the look of, and how much money they're willing to toss into the game at a time.

Actual tailoring though is poor sportsmanship.

No, he specifically said that you should bring a different army against Tau suits than you bring against Ork horde.

Writing your list when you know not only faction but composition of your opponents army is the worst kind of list tailoring (because there's no way to offer that opportunity equally to both players).

Vaxx wrote:
I have a hard time believing that being "tactical" trumps strong units and rng (random number generation).
.

Tacticians do trump strong units. Tacticians minimize how often they can be HURT by RNG as you dubbed it.

"Hopefully that means you're also being a good sport"

Maybe some of you guys missed that line?

Adjusting your lists so everyone can have a fun time is the bare minimum of social decency.

Do you think pro boxers bring their A-game if they're sparring with teens at a neighborhood club?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
I'm not really familiar with the concept of meeting with people, asking what army they play, build a list against said army and THEN proceed to play against them. I'm only familiar with such a concept in that it's called list tailoring and, if memory serves me, is very much frowned upon.

Have you never played a constructed scenario?

You absolutely need to build both armies to mission parameters and terrain.

Honestly I think cooperative customization plays to the best side of tabletop gaming, look at this historical reconstruction of Stalingrad using 40k.

https://goatronium.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/orkingrad-the-battle/

When I play Flames of War it certainly FEELS a lot more cooperative than when I play 40K (which is a metric ton). We both kind of want to see "what would happen if" and the mechanics are so much more universal among unit types that it is very much less about combos and more about the General.

As i said on another thread, exchanging lists a week before the game was the default we had when I first started. Thats just what we did. Seemed fair at the time.

icn1982 wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
Tactics are you most important part of the game. I've seen many a game won/lost because of tactical failures. After games if you usually go: what unit should I buy instead of how should I have played differently you re doing it wrong.

People talking about luck reminds me of people in MTG talking about too decking (getting the lucky card you need). Good players will tell you you have to be in a position to get lucky.

Dice are the same for everyone, but playing to minimize bad luck is a skill.

This with MTG, also applies to 40k. The likelihood of you getting that exact card you need when you only have 1 in your deck, 1 in 60, when you have 4, 1 in 15 - you have effectively gone from playing with a 60 card deck to a 15 card deck, 7 of which you will draw on turn one (yes, I know it gets more intricate than this with ratios, but this is a good starting point when teaching new players about deck building).

The same principles apply to 40k, if you are looking to build a competitive army, you build it with the odds stacked in your favour. If you know you are going to be facing a tank army, you put lots of things in your army to deal with armour, fighting a hoard army, templates become your friend.

That's all true but the point is you have to be in a position where your top deck wins you the game; you have to be able to get lucky to get lucky.

 Runic wrote:
Lists win matches. Players win tournaments.

Not quite. Some lists win some matches, and players with lists win tournaments. Can't do the job if you don't have the tools.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
List tailoring is a key tactic for the casual at all costs mafia - it lets them win games without taking a "cheesy" army (because it's essential that they maintain an advantage whilst still being able to discourage others from bringing effective lists) and it prevents them actually having to learn proper army construction.

I would like to Exalt this more than once.

I haven't seen it mentioned but knowledge of the other factions is a big help in winning games. Back when I used to play at the local GW the space marines players had a hard time winning games because everybody knew their faction but they didn't necessarily know the others. If you face necrons, daemons, tyranids, admech etc. for the first time and don't know what they're capable of, their weaknesses, statlines and special tricks you'll make a ton of mistakes

 gummyofallbears wrote:


I haven't read all of this, so I apologize if what I said has already been said.

I consider myself quite a competent DE player, and it is hard to dispute that DE are one of the worst armies in the game right now, and in my somewhat competitive meta, I can do well. I have beat meta eldar, daemons, and a bit of very strong lists, tau are always a hard counter and almost always an auto lose for me.

So I will say its about 50/50, some matchups just aren't good, they just can't work (IG vs eldar, GK vs gladius, HQ vs tau, etc etc) and its very difficult to win, but those are only occasional, and I think that if you have some lucky dice rolls and play to the mission, it is possible to win.

IMO DE have the nicest model range in 40k at the moment, and out of interest as a potential future project I read a bunch of tactics guides and put together a list this week. Came back to it once or twice to refine it but I couldn't come up with anything decent. Usually I go for semi competitive lists with (mostly) the units I like but put together in a way that's going to work on the table... in this case I couldn't manage it. What seemed okay at first completely fell down when I viewed it from the perspective of my chaos marines. Tyranids, orks, certain daemon builds and IG seem fragile compared with MEQ, but DE are on another level. At least the four factions I mentioned can field units en mass... by comparison dark eldar are both expensive and easy to kill. I don't envy you guys these days. Well, other than the models

Most of my winning comes from Psychological warfare, throwing units to scare our opponent, purposefully making a unit look scary, etc etc

Its quite thrilling if you like a challenge

 kingbobbito wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
What I took from OP's post was:
- some people will beat you no matter what but everyone is beatable?
- list tailoring should be encouraged
- playing a strong army makes you a bad person, you should look try to make a good army but not too good because that's bad.

Really not sure what his point was on the first one and the second is terrible advice - list tailoring is a crutch that hinders learning list construction. The third speaks for itself.

Have to agree with this. What exactly are you going for about some people just can't be beat but you can beat everyone? I'm really confused. I will say that I'm naturally bad at the game, I can reach the ideal strategy but it's just not fast enough (I don't want to take 30 minute turns). There are some people I really just can't beat unless they bring a sub-par list intentionally (which some of my friends do) or I, by random coincidence, run a hard counter to their list. Which comes to point 2 and 3, I refuse to list tailor, and point three, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them if they don't want to tone their lists down. I can still have fun even if I get whomped, bring the cheesiest, stinkiest Limburger if that's your thing. Over time most people learn that I suck and change their lists, but you can't hold it against them if they like that list and it just happens to be strong or it's all they own (I have a sub-par DA list just because I mostly own DW).

Seriously though, don't list tailor. That is what makes you a bad person. If I know I'm playing an ork player I'm not going to suddenly run all punishers and wyverns, that makes you a poopy bumhole. And very few people like those. I intentionally have a few lists prepared if I'm having a casual game and let the dice gods decide what I'm going to run, or ask my opponent what general list they want to play against (DW, general DA, my collection of librarians, foot guard or mech guard) if I know it's just a friendly game. If I know I'm up against that guy that does list tailor I'll tell him I'm bringing guard or whatever but roll off if I'm running mech or foot after he's picked his list. Or I just won't play him, because list tailoring is the lowest of lows you can go to unless your opponent specifically asks for a handicap and wants you to do it.

think he's saying "everyone can be beat, but don't expect to beat everyone all the time, and expect to lose consistantly against some people when you start"