Hey all, i'm just wondering if anyone is running into the same problem I'm having. I play a certain friend of mine who always runs Ultramarines or GK/Ultramarines. i set up all the table, the terrain, etc at my house... and I usually like to play around with different lists. Total setup takes around a hour to a hour and a half.

The last game we played.... his first turn with Ultramarines, he took out, a squad of 5 Dark Reapers, and 2 Night Spinners, a squad of 5 harlequin and a couple guardian with a Heavy platform..... I called the game after that...

The game previous to that ... I used deathguard... and I called the game at the end of his second turn... again he started this game first as well.

Is first turn in this game that huge... or are Ultramarines and GK that good?

He also uses Battlescribe putting his lists together. Does this calculate points accurately?

Thanks all... after these last few games i honestly dont see the point playing against his armies anymore.. The setup time.. along with 0 fun of getting my butt kicked doesnt seem worth it.

Welcome to warhammer.

The game Is easy to break.

Fix this by playing with the right type of people.

Sounds like you need some better terrain to block LOS. Without good terrain first/second turn tabling are more likely to happen.

Also it sounds like you and your friend are on different pages about what you want from the game. Talking to him is a requirement or you need to find some more people to play.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sounds like you need some better terrain to block LOS. Without good terrain first/second turn tabling are more likely to happen.

Yep. Lets see a pic of your table.

What points are you playing? Do you know the rules for his armies well enough to be confident that he's not cheating?

There are some things that might help.

First you want to make sure you have enough LOS blocking terrain. This can massively effect the first turn, and shooting lists in general.

Second, it's possible his lists are much better than yours. There are a few ways to handle this, imo. For one, talk to him and have a conversation about why you aren't having fun. Honestly i can't imagine he's having a ton of fun either if the games last 2 turns. He might be able to help you put better lists together, or tone down his lists some. If he's not willing to have that conversation, you might want to find other people to play with.

For the most part, having a codex gives you some advantage, but the lists shouldn't be unbeatable, and you should be going first about half the time. I would suggest using the roll of to do first method if you aren't already. Other than that you may need to work on your lists and strategy.

jcd386 wrote:
There are some things that might help.

First you want to make sure you have enough LOS blocking terrain. This can massively effect the first turn, and shooting lists in general.

Second, it's possible his lists are much better than yours. There are a few ways to handle this, imo. For one, talk to him and have a conversation about why you aren't having fun. Honestly i can't imagine he's having a ton of fun either if the games last 2 turns. He might be able to help you put better lists together, or tone down his lists some. If he's not willing to have that conversation, you might want to find other people to play with.

For the most part, having a codex gives you some advantage, but the lists shouldn't be unbeatable, and you should be going first about half the time. I would suggest using the roll of to do first method if you aren't already. Other than that you may need to work on your lists and strategy.

But not too much, because then the IG hides all their artillery out of LoS.

It depends what he's running, what your terrain looks like, and how you're deploying. This may be a particularly bad matchup, first turn -wise.

Guilliman surrounded by a bunch of shooty units is going to absolutely crush most casual lists -- he is extraordinarily powerful. GKs also have pretty solid alpha strike potential -- that's the army's whole thing, really. You can at least blunt the gunline's turn 1 output with LoS blocking terrain, but expect to lose against Guilliman shooting regardless once you show yourself.

Meanwhile, many Eldar units are glass cannons. Dark Reapers and Harlequins in particular. And now that Razorwing Flocks have been nerfed into the ground, you don't have many options for stopping deep strikers from shooting valuable targets. Wave Serpents are probably your best screening option.

Except for very casual games, Harlequins and Dark Reapers should basically always be deployed inside transports for protection. Just in general Eldar infantry is only ever worthwhile if they get to attack before getting attacked, so IMO a Serpent is nearly mandatory for anything that can ride in one. Guardians die like Guardsmen but cost twice as much and only shoot better when inside 12".

For many matchups this is not nearly as big of a problem. Infantry-heavy armies that don't pay 8 points for a GEQ are pretty resilient in the face of most turn 1 attacks. Armies full of light vehicles (Serpents, Razorbacks, flyers, etc.) are also fairly durable unless your opponent has just a ton of anti-tank weaponry. But a Guilliman blob is still going to convincingly outshoot just about anything else outside of tournament-quality lists.

I played a tournament game where on the first turn I wiped two squads of long fangs and put 10 mortal wounds on his stormfang. He won a minor victory based on objectives.

Just because you lost units doesn't mean you lost the game unless you're only ever playing to kill the enemy army entirely, which is dumb.

IGOUGO is the problem and won't ever be fixed.

Warhammer 40000 has always made going first very strong. This edition makes it even stronger.

If someone chooses to deepstrike half his army and manages to destroy several of your units before you get to play, you'll just have to play with a 3/4 of your units.

The game has been much improved with 8th edition, but the fact that one player gets to move, shoot and assault with his whole army while the other one watches will always lead to this kind of things.

The only way to fix that would be to have the players alternate in each phase (player A moves a unit, then player B moves a unit, etc...). 9th edition maybe...

You can also build your list in much a way that you can survive the first turn and still be effective.

I agree with what most people have posted about the Line of Sight Blocking Terrain. There should be something in the middle of the table to at least break the table into shooting lanes. Playing a game where a Land Raiders 48in range can shoot whatever it wants on the table is generally no fun and leads to games where less tactical decisions are being made.

As far as going first always Games Workshop just released new rules covering the first turn mechanic. Now the player who finishes deploying first simply gets +1 to the roll-off to see who gets the first turn.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/09/new-matched-play-rules-in-chapter-approved-aug-9gw-homepage-post-1/

The best advice I can give is have a conversation with your buddy about what type of games you want to play. If he isnt cool with you saying, "I dont really find playing Guilliman fun", then maybe look around in your community for players who are more casual. Now if you are new to the game and want to play more competitively then it will simply take time to get better. Ask a more experienced Eldar player for help list building or for synergies that you may not have thought of.

Hope this helps!

Well, i'd also advice you to jabe a talk with him about what you expect from the gale, how competitive you want an army you comz up with is and what for. Try mayne to convince him to tweak hos lists so as to jave a more zqual match. Then if he affirms he isn't some hardcore tryhard, proceed to building up terrain with a heavy amount of high terrain and buildings which will reduce lines of sights across the table. If it still doesn't work, you should either plau with somebody else or jump onto another game.

Hope you'll fix it.

There are a number of solutions:

1) Get first turn yourself

2) Use more blocking terrain

3) Play maelstrom

4) Put together a stronger list, or fight cheese with cheese.

What does his list look like?

Next time I have the bored set up I will try and remember to take a picture. I do have a decent amount of terrain but maybe not enough to block complete LOS. Off the top of my head, 4 of the GW buildings, the Armageddon set scenery, a set of pipes, a set of aegis defense line, and a few other small things. Also have a few citadel woods, and well as hand made forrests.. but you can see right through the trees lol.

He does run Guilleman and seems to get a millions rerolls for all of his surrounding units. The last list I brought was def out matched by his. I don't know his army very well as far as rules or points go.. I think he said a regular squad of 5 Primaris marines are 100 points.. which I found hard to believe..

You should be able to place your important elements out of LOS in deployment or it's not a game. It's just who goes first wins.

Plus - don't call games like that - see how it goes first. Losing 500 points a turn is pretty common place in this edition. You can easily retaliate. Though to me - it sounds like you are making errors in deployment. Nightspinners should not ever be visible to the enemy - dark reapers ether - because they can move and shoot.

If you don't have LOS blocking terrain you can just house rule things. ie - "you can't shoot through these woods" - "these windows are actually walls"

Looking at tournament results it's very much who goes first wins. It's a huge problem for the game, and I'm strongly considering going back to warmachine where tactics and skill matter, not random dice rolls, or how many units did I bring.

 GreaterGood? wrote:
Looking at tournament results it's very much who goes first wins. It's a huge problem for the game, and I'm strongly considering going back to warmachine where tactics and skill matter, not random dice rolls, or how many units did I bring.

It's almost like ultra-reliable shooting deepstrike, nerfed cover, and the inability for units that don't explicitly have Reserves to hide in reserves ironically favor alphastrikes even more than before...

You need LOS blocking terrain.

I use either a Fortress of Redemption, or a double-bastion (two bastions glued together, literally) in the centre of the table, plus a few other LOS blockers.

I would also suggest playing to Objectives, where your superior mobility will help. Wave Serpents are extremely good transports this edition, and you still have access to jetbikes. Use them.

I played a casual game this weekend and lost a land raider, troops inside, and had a razorback fully degraded on turn 1. I lost a few special weapons as well.

I think the total cost of what I lost was about 540 points, if you count fractional loss of wounds on a Razorback. I mean, it would be hitting his StormRaven on 6s without moving, so pretty degraded.

Anyway I ended up forcing a concede at the end of my turn 2 (bottom turn 2). Over the course of the game I lost over 1,000 points.

If you give up when your nose gets bloodied, you won't learn. Going second means you'll get punched in the mouth, as it should be.

IGOUGO is not the problem. This is an IGOUGO game. If you don't like that play a different game. GK/Ultramarines aren't dominating anything. Guilliman is good in tournament lists because he provides a buff to all imperium. The best Guilliman list at Bay Area Open used him to amplify Imperial Guard.

Skipping all of the more technical answers (i.e. rules, lists, terrain, etc.) for a moment. The key to any game, particularly one which is easily manipulated/broken as Warhammer 40K, is to find someone who's interested in the same game experience you enjoy. There will never be an enjoyable game if you're trying to write fun/fluffy lists or building cool thematic tables, and the other guy just wants to kick your nuts in and go drink a beer. In my gaming group of maybe 14-16 people I have maybe 4-5 who enjoy thematic, narrative games and are less driven by mathhammer and results. The most enjoyable games are with those guys, because we have a common interest. In short, you may need to find someone new to play with, or if you think there's a skill/list discrepancy - let your opponent know you're not enjoying the game. As far as I'm concerned any game outside of a tournament should be a collaborative effort to have fun rolling some dice.

A lot of this discussion will depend on whether your opponent is an actual friend, or someone who simply plays Warhammer with you. I'd have zero issue with telling any of my actual buddies "Hey man, can we change up the lists? That Guilliman (or whatever) isn't much fun to play against and the games are getting repetitive." etc.

From a technical side of things:

1) More terrain if necessary.
2) Player some of the narrative missions which have delayed army placement, reinforcements, special scenario rules, etc. This breaks up the first-turn advantage (which is obnoxiously strong in 40K in particular).
3) Create custom scenarios that you both agree to try.

I enjoy 8th ed. 40K but I enjoy it as a loose chassis around which to form a fun game in the 40K universe. It's still easily broken and very swingy, and I do think it suffers a lot if you don't take some steps to minimize that stuff.

Ya I think I'm going to pick up more terrain and see how that works. Also research some lists and bring units that can match up a bit better. The frist gasme we played, I brought a more serious list (with the models I have). The eldar list, i was trying to make serious... but I wanted to play test a load of Harlequins... that took up way to many points and made my eldar half awful.

Just ask him to stop using Guilliman and see how it goes. From a casual gaming perspective he is essentially unusable. He is absolutely beatable from a competitive stand point, but if you just want to roll some dice and have some fun Guilliman is not fun... for anyone.

LOS blocking terrain is essential as well and many of the above solutions are good ones (minus the moaning about igougo and first strike), but the simplest solution to your issue involves the removal of Guilliman. You might still lose as his army sounds more competitive then yours in general but you will see a big difference just from that one change.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Hey all, i'm just wondering if anyone is running into the same problem I'm having. I play a certain friend of mine who always runs Ultramarines or GK/Ultramarines. i set up all the table, the terrain, etc at my house... and I usually like to play around with different lists. Total setup takes around a hour to a hour and a half.

The last game we played.... his first turn with Ultramarines, he took out, a squad of 5 Dark Reapers, and 2 Night Spinners, a squad of 5 harlequin and a couple guardian with a Heavy platform..... I called the game after that...

The game previous to that ... I used deathguard... and I called the game at the end of his second turn... again he started this game first as well.

Is first turn in this game that huge... or are Ultramarines and GK that good?

He also uses Battlescribe putting his lists together. Does this calculate points accurately?

Thanks all... after these last few games i honestly dont see the point playing against his armies anymore.. The setup time.. along with 0 fun of getting my butt kicked doesnt seem worth it.

1) what was the lists. GK, smurfs are not inherently over powered but smurfs currently have some of the best ability and characters in the game.
2) how much LOS Blocking terrain. its no fun to play an open field and its your house and your terrain im assuming
3) the game is REALLY swingy it seems he could just be lucky
4) dont use battle scribe as a substitute for the rule book. people make mistakes and things dont always get updated.

Battlescribe is mostly and usually accurate, especially on the points front. If you're not sure his list is accurate, ask to see it and manually work it out.

Another thing is he's using two armies which currently has codexes. While not inherently unbalanced, it does give his army a lot more options than yours (such as free relics, exclusive strategems, warlord traits, etc).

Also Eldar takes a lot more skill to use this edition than the last one and DG has lost some of it's options (that presumably will return when their codex drops in a few weeks). Wait a few weeks for the DG codex to drop and maybe it'll be less lopsided.

That and remember 40k is a dice-based game. I once fought and won against an Avatar of Khaine with one Genestealer, all because the avatar rolled a series of 1's when it really needed anything but a 1. Not saying that would be a common occurance, but freak accidents do occur and you may have just pissed off lady luck for some reason.

1: abuse deep strike to ensure your valuable linchpin units don't die.

2: now that you've less on the table, put the rest behind LOS blocking cover!

3: find yourself a sacrificial lamb that will block off deep strike. Get the cheapest unit you can and konga line it in front of important units (that should be out of Los at this point) in order to stop your enemy from charging them turn one.

I hope this helps you survive alpha strike cheese. I play inquisition grey Knights and scions, and the way I counter turn one alpha striking is by alpha striking most my list through deep strike and keeping the rest out of LOS waiting to shunt or gate forward. I only keep units that are shooting support or objective grabbers on the table turn one.

From what you listed, it doesn't sound like you actually have much terrain at all. You need some big rocks to break up the line of sight.

I would also recommend a house rule that gives multiple layers of cover bonuses. Like Woods give +1 to your save. A ruined building gives +2. And something like a purpose built trenchwork or ADL gives +3.

 Grey Templar wrote:
From what you listed, it doesn't sound like you actually have much terrain at all. You need some big rocks to break up the line of sight.

I would also recommend a house rule that gives multiple layers of cover bonuses. Like Woods give +1 to your save. A ruined building gives +2. And something like a purpose built trenchwork or ADL gives +3.

"My ultramarines are actually imperial fists, hehehegehehcxiggixigcgkv"

 Grey Templar wrote:
From what you listed, it doesn't sound like you actually have much terrain at all. You need some big rocks to break up the line of sight.

I would also recommend a house rule that gives multiple layers of cover bonuses. Like Woods give +1 to your save. A ruined building gives +2. And something like a purpose built trenchwork or ADL gives +3.

Nah - adding cover saves only makes things worse. Then we are back to 7th edition where the AP of your weapon no longer matters. The +1 armor for cover is fine anything more punishes aggression and rewards never leaving your deployment zone. LOS blocking is all you need.

5 Intercessors are 100 points with no upgrades.

More and better terrain will help, you'll probably have to house rule something like a gap filler rule that makes the large amounts of not solid terrain into solid.

Overall, my experience is that 1000 point value games is the breaking point for most games, although if you go specialized you can break it even more.

At 2000, well 2000 points of stuff doing things is pretty much going to level the opposition. I'd rather play a different game with 40k miniatures than try to make it work.

The whole thing people say about finding a better opponent is only a stopgap measure when the rules themselves don't really understand their own limits.

 Vertrucio wrote:
More and better terrain will help, you'll probably have to house rule something like a gap filler rule that makes the large amounts of not solid terrain into solid.

Overall, my experience is that 1000 point value games is the breaking point for most games, although if you go specialized you can break it even more.

At 2000, well 2000 points of stuff doing things is pretty much going to level the opposition. I'd rather play a different game with 40k miniatures than try to make it work.

The whole thing people say about finding a better opponent is only a stopgap measure when the rules themselves don't really understand their own limits.

I'd say the opposite - 2000-2500 is the point where it works. At smaller points level more powerful units become essentially unstoppable.

To the OP - listen, there are all kinds of people out there. We call them WAAC, "That Guy", competitive, etc. These labels are meant to communicate our dissatisfaction with the way certain people play the game.

It can be surprising when it turns out to be a friend who is doing it. I like trying new lists and competitive builds as much as anyone, but I try to keep in mind who I am playing against when doing it. Not everyone thinks that way.

A few suggestions:

1) Talk to your opponent about your dissatisfaction. See if he understands and is capable of change.

2) Play against some other players. Sometimes we get locked in with a small group of people. Variety is the spice of life.

3) Figure out a way to cut down on your setup time. It sounds harsh. If it takes me more than 20 minutes to set up a game, I know I did something wrong.

4) Think up some new scenarios / alternate rules that account for your opponent's advantage. I really like the Relic mission because it forces people to focus on a single objective. Think about how you could make that work against him, there are a lot of ways.

5) Finally, not to blame the victim, but look at your own army list and consider whether or not there are ways to make it better. Any time I get tabled I come back the next game with something different. We are using a system with power levels - max out your own units with weapons you know will hurt him.

6) Don't play Tau.

LMK if any of this works.

One thing I'd like to say: It's give and take, so think about your opponent as well. It seems like he enjoys playing hard lists, so don't just ask him to play a softer list, but try to meet his expectations as well.

Personally, I don't min-max at all cost, but I try to play semi-hard lists. Then there is one guy who does not give a feth about playing 40k as well, but he plays it because he does not want to be alone at home while we play (my group consists of friends I knew before we started 40k). It is absolutely no fun playing against him when part of my fun is trying to do my best to get a close match. So try not to be this guy.

its hard to say without knowing what your table and lists look like but if you are trying to walk small squads of elder right up to his gun line you are going to have a bad time. also don't forget you are not required to deploy everything if you know you might get pasted first turn. units like rangers and striking scorpions can deploy from reserves right where you need them and can really put heat on his support characters and other units. Eldar transports are fast and durable. Eldar more so than a lot of other armies really require you to use the proper tool for the job so make sure you aren't using a scalpel when you really need a hammer.

I wish there was an introduction of a "First turn only" Stratigem that allowed for a FNP or + cover save to all units.

Something that would cost 3CP to the player going 2nd.

In Tournaments going 1st is HUGE.. most games are won in that turn.

OP.
Your opponent is not using magic.

He fields units, what ones are effective? Why?
Do you have any means of counteracting that?
Do you have good deep-strike units? That may mitigate the first turn massacre.
Play to your army's strengths. Not to your opponent's. If he likes to shoot, get him in melee (as long as you are better at it than him).

What is the point of playing?
To have fun.
Learn the rules so it is "easy".
Make plans and execute them.
Try to outplan, outwit your opponent, honestly it is OK to do that just don't do a victory dance when you win.

Now there may be a slight chance that your opponent, really, really, REALLY likes to win (as in possibly past what the rules would allow).
He may use the "loud confident voice" stating a rule as fact... look it up anyway... to "help you remember" and he may be wrong.
Is your opponent able to see your army before you see his or his list?
How about you wait till he pulls out a list before he sees what you brought along. (I knew of a few people who would make some 3 lists against hordes... etc).
Look for strange ways of rolling or scooping up dice, if you cannot see it, it may be wrong.

Give a little thought on "synergies" like the units with various auras or various command point abilities.
What are the special rules for your chosen army? It may be a big bonus depending on the situation.
Think of cost efficiencies.
What appears to be king right now is two things: ~6+Strength weapons by the bucket full (assault cannons)of hits and the 9+strength weapons with a ton of AP and Damage (lascannons) or the generic inbetween of plasma.

Assault weapons, do you like to advance and possibly get to attack first? Or maybe depend on a jet/jump pack to get there?
Pistols: nice to be able to shoot prior to having another round of melee fighting. Plasma pistols or Grav-pistols can make a difference... or say if you assaulted a vehicle... that infernis hand melta is definitely inside of 1/2 range.
Want to move and shoot? ESPECIALLY critical for aircraft: machine spirit or it's equivalents for no negatives for moving is a huge bonus (strafing run and interceptor are specialized versions).
Re-rolls for overcharged plasma weapons is invaluable, where can you get that?

I am looking for feedback on a SM army of 2000 points (not getting many takers) but it does not hurt to post it up and see if anyone with a bit more critical thinking than you can suggest to help.
Many times you can get things pointed out you did not know.

Anyway, this is a good start but without detail, hard to determine the cause of the losses.

Reading thru this thread it is clear that a return to RPG narrative elements whether in the form of missions or pregame discourse, a return to sportsmanship and army comp rules with no named characters, and generally not treating 40k as Magic the collectible card game with 3d cards are all aspects of the fix. Finer grained terrain and cover rules, these would help as well. But the big issue seems to be people focused on the deck building phase as just that, a way to use rare special tokens to exploit rules and tip the balance of the game in their favor instead of collecting cool stuff and letting the game playnout on the table. So now it comes down to how many cards can i play before my opponent so that I can stop him playing any at all. Fist turn alpha strike entire armies now death stars... Justyuck.
OP if you opponent is of this mindset, then either ask him to change his mind or IMO drop the dude and spend your time developing other relationships. MtG reminds me of cat piss and stale socks. I can't stand it and the fact that it has infected this venerable wargame. Insidious as it is, this mindset seems to have infected your opponent as well. So one question, does the dude play MtG?

jcd386 wrote:
You can also build your list in much a way that you can survive the first turn and still be effective.

Sometimes you simply can't. Many armies have no options to mitigate shooty alpha-strikes.

 jeff white wrote:
Reading thru this thread it is clear that a return to RPG narrative elements whether in the form of missions or pregame discourse, a return to sportsmanship and army comp rules with no named characters, and generally not treating 40k as Magic the collectible card game with 3d cards are all aspects of the fix. Finer grained terrain and cover rules, these would help as well. But the big issue seems to be people focused on the deck building phase as just that, a way to use rare special tokens to exploit rules and tip the balance of the game in their favor instead of collecting cool stuff and letting the game playnout on the table. So now it comes down to how many cards can i play before my opponent so that I can stop him playing any at all. Fist turn alpha strike entire armies now death stars... Justyuck.
OP if you opponent is of this mindset, then either ask him to change his mind or IMO drop the dude and spend your time developing other relationships. MtG reminds me of cat piss and stale socks. I can't stand it and the fact that it has infected this venerable wargame. Insidious as it is, this mindset seems to have infected your opponent as well. So one question, does the dude play MtG?

Alpha strike will always be a thing as long as the game is IGOUGO. If it switched to some form of alternate activations at least it could be mitigated. I look forward to seeing what GW tries in Necromunda. Maybe they'll be able to import something into 40k 9th in another 4 or 5 years.

Until then, best to remember this is a beer and pretzels game and we play for fun. Dice for the dice gods!

Really the best solution is to just complete a turn for each unit individually, and deal with the fact that halves the amount of CC attacks models get.

 Vertrucio wrote:
More and better terrain will help, you'll probably have to house rule something like a gap filler rule that makes the large amounts of not solid terrain into solid.

Overall, my experience is that 1000 point value games is the breaking point for most games, although if you go specialized you can break it even more.

At 2000, well 2000 points of stuff doing things is pretty much going to level the opposition. I'd rather play a different game with 40k miniatures than try to make it work.

The whole thing people say about finding a better opponent is only a stopgap measure when the rules themselves don't really understand their own limits.

I'd like to politly object to your last point.

I don't think that finding other opponents are only a half solution, in regard to the fact thay you can virtually house rule everything when playing at home. With someone else it could be possible to make several tweaks and rules both playes would agree to go on with so as to not take the fun out. In case you play in local stores etc, then surely it won't fix the game itself and hiw easy it's broken or abused by players, but in the precise case we are discussing, it doesn't seems so so far: in our fellow's case, it could be an alternative to getting endlessly stomp by one dude.

Could you maybe post your full list? This would make it easier to see if your army composition is a problem or not. Your experience seems to be shared by quite a few players (*cough* me *cough*) who started this edition by rebuilding their old lists. You have to play your army to its strengths in 8th edition (e.g. running characters with auras behind a few units. Or, Wave Serpent spam ).

Largely going from 7th still, but I find most of the deployment types in the rule book lean heavily towards an alpha strike type situation. Starting 24" apart, in full range of damn near everything, is silly. We tend to play on a much larger table and generally have a couple of turns of movement (through terrain etc) before even engaging with the enemy - evens it out some.

I know I can't say it for sure, but it just sounds like he is writing better lists and playing smarter than you. If he is going first and wasting your Dark Reapers, it's because he has less drops than you and you aren't deploying your Reapers in a Wave Serpent. Put them in that Transport, in a difficult to hit spot and you'll find they live to fire back. If you go a step farther, you can put a few Wave Serpents in your list, deploy those reapers, a few squad and all of your characters in transports and drastically cut down on your drops, making it likely you go before him.

Guilliman is basically the death of fun in 8th. hes the shiny new toy, so GW is not going to balance him, so really you should just talk to your opponent and see what you can do to balance him out. I would advise that the player who doesn't have Guilliman fields an additional 150 points, similar to the fix we applied in my group with Wraithknights in the last edition. Because people shouldn't be penalized for using their cool new models, but after a certain point fair is fair.

You need to find some new people to play against.

I started running an all-Primaris force. I spent most of my games playing against some variation of Guard and kept getting stomped to the point where I was willing to give up.

Then I actually got healthy enough to go back to the FLGS (I recently had some extensive dental surgery, it did a real number on the way I talk, my smile, and the way my breath smells due to the massive amount of tissue removal and such). Playing against anyone else, I did great. Not always a 'win' but I have a 1500 point list that's being replicated right now by a few people to even better results with a few tweaks.

Avoid playing against one type of army all the time. It'll have you discouraged and you'll be so far into building a certain type of army that you'll suck at fighting everyone else.

Another tactic- it's bizarre and doesn't sound like it makes much sense.... but ask your friend if you two can 'swap armies' for a game. It'll help you learn what he has and how to counter it.

Play a different game. Clearly you are looking for 40K to be something it's not. We're in the Golden Age of tabletop wargaming and it's an exciting world out there full of balance and well written rules. Take the red pill.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Play a different game. Clearly you are looking for 40K to be something it's not. We're in the Golden Age of tabletop wargaming and it's an exciting world out there full of balance and well written rules. Take the red pill.

You're kinda right here. The best 40k gaming is when people get together for 'fun games'. Competitive 40k is a pointless endeavor at the moment.

I'd suggest playing Infinity. It's cheaper than you think, and it's a breath of fresh air. It has funny little gimmicks that will make you think of 40k as a caveman game.

Or, alternatively, find a better class of opponent.

A 'good 40k game' in my opinion isn't "Let's put 2k down" and going competitive. It's games like I have with friends where we go, "Let's get Grimaldus and some Black Templars against Ghazghkull and do a narrative mission".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


A 'good 40k game' in my opinion isn't "Let's put 2k down" and going competitive. It's games like I have with friends where we go, "Let's get Grimaldus and some Black Templars against Ghazghkull and do a narrative mission".

+1. You basically defined what 40k is about.

But since your friend doesn't seem to be in that mindset, once again, either convince him to or quit to find new opponents with the same way to enjoy the game as you do or even new games.

You might also just be incompetent at that, as some suggest, however the core of your problem has nothing to do with your skills i think, and remains the same : a player who would just play for fun would have already tried to bring something up to artificially balance your encounters. Since he hasn't so far, either he is sure you try to beat him and don't get any results whatsoever because he is head and shoulders above you and just waits for you to start getting harsher , more competitive, or he is a WAAC and doesn't give a damn as long as he crushes somebody in the end.

Well, it looks like the advice has run the full gamut:

- Don't play him.
- Make a better list.
- Place better terrain.
- IGOUGO / Alphastrike / too close placement is to blame.
- Play a different game.

Every kind of game has rules that have strengths and weaknesses.
The OP needs to get a better handle of what works and what does not.
A new opponent or game system will most likely exchange known problems with new ones (the devil you know or the devil you don't?).

All this is solvable within the existing game system.
I just hate how people do not give rules a chance and try to house rule almost immediately.
Play many games with the straight up rules and you can figure out all kinds of interesting tactics and strategies.
We play standardized games for a reason: pick-up games.
If you are used to your own special snowflake rules, good luck convincing anyone else to play them.

Have we taken a look at the Stratagems?
Are there good ones that require certain units?
Have we looked at force structures to get max command points?
Have we looked at missions, what are key force capabilities needed to gain objectives?
Are there certain chapter/craftworld/special snowflake rules that give a situational edge? How can you achieve those conditions?

At the very least, why the heck did you lose in the last game and the time before that?

The majority of the time a person has "invested" too much into a friend or their models to reasonably drop the person or game: this is rather trite if not unreasonable advice.

More often than not, a player is pushing around models reacting to their opponent as things come up, you should never do this.
Have a plan, work toward it and only as a secondary measure do you react in a limited fashion to your opponent's strategy: be the one in control or you lose.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
+1. You basically defined what 40k is about.

I know. My first foray into Warhammer 40k was into a very, very competitive scene. After getting crushed by turn 3 nearly every time I played, against people who had absolutely no desire to do anything other than 'win'... I just put the models away and didn't touch them until many years later.

12 years, to be specific.

Hyper-competitive players are the bane of 40k. I have a guy in my local community that's a bit of an exile from my FLGS. The dude has literally bought and flipped (as in, resold) at least 4 armies in the last year to keep on the 'competitive edge' of the game. He's no fun to play against, because every list he brings is a tournament-winner (which is fine), but it's almost embarrassing watching him put everything he's got into beating some guy with a brand new boxed 'Start Collecting' set with the glue still drying. After putting him into a 'pariah' status (which helped us get new players), he only showed back up to sell off his old models when something 'better' came out.

I can't wrap my mind around that. I invested in my 4 armies because I thought they were cool. I lose a LOT, but I have fun playing them. Right now, my main 'lol' on the tabletop is "You killed one of my guys, now I'm dumping literally every gun I have on the Repulsor into that thing that did it, because Black Templars angry".

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
A 'good 40k game' in my opinion isn't "Let's put 2k down" and going competitive. It's games like I have with friends where we go, "Let's get Grimaldus and some Black Templars against Ghazghkull and do a narrative mission".

+1. You basically defined what 40k is about.
But since your friend doesn't seem to be in that mindset, once again, either convince him to or quit to find new opponents with the same way to enjoy the game as you do or even new games.
You might also just be incompetent at that, as some suggest, however the core of your problem has nothing to do with your skills i think, and remains the same : a player who would just play for fun would have already tried to bring something up to artificially balance your encounters. Since he hasn't so far, either he is sure you try to beat him and don't get any results whatsoever because he is head and shoulders above you and just waits for you to start getting harsher , more competitive, or he is a WAAC and doesn't give a damn as long as he crushes somebody in the end.

Narrative, when carefully done, can be VERY balanced and very competitive.
Giving careful thought, some customized rules for the scenario, always with the viewpoint you could play either side and it works.
I would usually make a list of "hidden" objectives that would be randomly drawn so it adds a bit of a "shell game" to it all.

Yes, sometimes friends could be a WAAC player so you may have to emphasize the fun element a bit more or keep exposure to a minimum (playing competitive games) or it will kill your fun.

To bring something to "artificially balance" the game is a "scrub" mentality where the #1 fallacy is that you assume your opponent will use and understand the artificial rules you placed on yourself.
A game is played by it's rules as written.
Anything else, you are playing a different game and you have to make sure your opponent is aware and agreeable.

If I may - OP - what would you like to get out of the hobby? I ask because I am a very competitive gamer (which despite the Casual At All Costing in this thread isn't a bad thing) and it sounds like that's also what your regular opponent is interested in. The question that I think would be most valuable to find the answer to is what drives you to play 40k? Are you a competitive guy, are you interested in tournaments and making 'hard' lists? Or do you have another driver for your hobby?

Once we know the answer to that it will be easier to offer reasonable advice that isn't condescending (i.e. that you're bad) or preachy (i.e. anyone interested in competitive play is contributing to the degradation of the hobby).

Also, I'm thinking the OP might be one of those unfortunates that lives in an area like my hometown- not many players at all (one guy I knew played Warhammer fantasy, and he couldn't even be assed to paint his Lizardmen and most of them were missing limbs or heads).

The nearest place to play Warhammer was an hour away, and it wasn't unusual to show up and find 2 guys there playing a game, wait for them to finish- and the rest of the day no one else showed up.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Hyper-competitive players are the bane of 40k. I have a guy in my local community that's a bit of an exile from my FLGS. The dude has literally bought and flipped (as in, resold) at least 4 armies in the last year to keep on the 'competitive edge' of the game. He's no fun to play against, because every list he brings is a tournament-winner (which is fine), but it's almost embarrassing watching him put everything he's got into beating some guy with a brand new boxed 'Start Collecting' set with the glue still drying. After putting him into a 'pariah' status (which helped us get new players), he only showed back up to sell off his old models when something 'better' came out.

We each have our sliding scale I guess.
Have mercy (main focus learning) on the new players: there are few of us as it is. Give them a chance to get good, you never know they could progress really fast.
I have seen so many folks that grudgingly use their bare plastic models as little more than chess pieces: the look and "majesty" of the game is irrelevant to them.
To assemble and paint models is a commitment, you lose a bit of flexibility as rules change when models are complete.
40k has a good look to it, with a great story and "history" so to ignore it all to only consider the rules is missing out and seems a bit soulless (plus 40k is not a master strategist pursuit by any stretch).

I think anyone not trying to participate in the full-package hobby can be a bit of a bane since there is little to discuss with them due to such a narrow interest.

 Grey Templar wrote:
From what you listed, it doesn't sound like you actually have much terrain at all. You need some big rocks to break up the line of sight.

I would also recommend a house rule that gives multiple layers of cover bonuses. Like Woods give +1 to your save. A ruined building gives +2. And something like a purpose built trenchwork or ADL gives +3.

I have a pretty good amount of terrain. Maybe just not enough to break up cover. The game I played... I separated the board, half ruined buildings and half citadel woods... and house ruled the woods gave a +1 cover... unfortunately being able to see through the woods gave complete LOS on just about everything.

Thanks everyone for your input. I think the next time I will play him I'll choose Deathguard. I'm going to take a unit of terminators and obliterators to knock out some of his back line units that like to hide and capture points. Also going to take a ton of pox walkers along with Typhus and Necrosis.

Also trying to get my hands on a Defiler and/or a Predator. I used a Landraider in one of our games but man its a point sink, it is durable though.

 Talizvar wrote:
I think anyone not trying to participate in the full-package hobby can be a bit of a bane since there is little to discuss with them due to such a narrow interest.

I'm no fan of playing with people who just use the pieces to play a game. I'm not going to shriek if every model isn't pro-painted (many of mine are simply primed, with a few parts done on them). I like seeing someone who's put an effort into making his army.

However, I say I'm not a fan- but when that sort of person inevitably gets bored with the game and starts selling off his models, I'm usually there to take advantage of that bargain with a smile on my face.

To the OP, I think he may be simply limited on the sort of person he plays with. If he's stuck with this one guy, then he might be better off spending his time making a little road trip to a FLGS to find some new games. He might be shockingly good at games near his skill level.

Farseer_V2 wrote:
If I may - OP - what would you like to get out of the hobby? I ask because I am a very competitive gamer (which despite the Casual At All Costing in this thread isn't a bad thing) and it sounds like that's also what your regular opponent is interested in. The question that I think would be most valuable to find the answer to is what drives you to play 40k? Are you a competitive guy, are you interested in tournaments and making 'hard' lists? Or do you have another driver for your hobby?

Once we know the answer to that it will be easier to offer reasonable advice that isn't condescending (i.e. that you're bad) or preachy (i.e. anyone interested in competitive play is contributing to the degradation of the hobby).

Or just play a game with a tight ruleset that caters to all types of gamers. There's a fallacy that poorly written rulesets such as 40K promote casual gaming, when actually it makes it a lot harder to arrange a game due to all of the different variables that have to be negotiated. My go-to game is Infinity. One question is all it takes - what mission shall we play? Due to being such a well written ruleset it lends itself very well to narrative and casual gaming at the same time as having a thriving tournament scene which allows players from all around the world to turn up to a tournament [Interplanetario] and throw down knowing only the missions [and points level but unless otherwise stated it's always 300 points]. When I used to play 40k it required discussion after discussion and negotiation of house rules. Even after 3 editions of superheavies being in the core game some people still think there is a discussion to be had about whether the other person should get to use their expensive toys or not, and I've even seen arguments on batreps about whether FW should be included, something that I thought had been laid to bed years ago. 40K has never been about producing a balanced ruleset, it has always been a vehicle to sell models. Rogue Trader even required a Games Master. People really need to stop trying to make 40K something it's not and has never been.

I think with any hobby, the pressure and competition should be with yourself: to get better at things.

To see models assembled and some attempt at paint on them is fine. Pro-painted is not necessary and people are surprisingly nervous of being judged which people should not be doing unless they are not terribly nice human beings.

Knowing your rules makes games quick and a joy to play.

Gaining from someone's willingness to part from their property at a reduced price I think makes anyone buying happy. It is another interesting skill set stripping and disassembly/repair of models, though I have seen armies fielded in the colors of multiple armies since they could not be bothered to change them.

I am scared with the huge amount of tweaks I have had to do for my army: make a specially kitted out Sgt here, magnet up and paint sponsons / turret guns, kitbash turrrets with twin assault cannons, more Sgts with combi-weapons (magnets? haven't done that yet... use them in Sternguard otherwise?), magnets on vehicles for that one or two stormbolters and maybe a crack missile? More freaking painting... set too high a bar what I originally painted, so nothing cranks out fast.

So yeah, we all have our "first world problems" so all I can say is do all you can to enjoy your games.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Or just play a game with a tight ruleset that caters to all types of gamers. There's a fallacy that poorly written rulesets such as 40K promote casual gaming, when actually it makes it a lot harder to arrange a game due to all of the different variables that have to be negotiated. My go-to game is Infinity. One question is all it takes - what mission shall we play? Due to being such a well written ruleset it lends itself very well to narrative and casual gaming at the same time as having a thriving tournament scene which allows players from all around the world to turn up to a tournament [Interplanetario] and throw down knowing only the missions [and points level but unless otherwise stated it's always 300 points]. When I used to play 40k it required discussion after discussion and negotiation of house rules. Even after 3 editions of superheavies being in the core game some people still think there is a discussion to be had about whether the other person should get to use their expensive toys or not, and I've even seen arguments on batreps about whether FW should be included, something that I thought had been laid to bed years ago. 40K has never been about producing a balanced ruleset, it has always been a vehicle to sell models. Rogue Trader even required a Games Master. People really need to stop trying to make 40K something it's not and has never been.

That's all well and good but I don't enjoy Infinity. So please have fun with your game but don't attempt to dictate to me how I should enjoy my hobby or my games.

40K has always poorly handled the first turn. There should be a mechanic that reduces the amount of firepower that can be dished out. Either way, terrain has to be a factor and you really should have places to conceal and hide from big guns without that first turn player having to move to get hits.

 jeff white wrote:
Reading thru this thread it is clear that a return to RPG narrative elements whether in the form of missions or pregame discourse, a return to sportsmanship and army comp rules with no named characters, and generally not treating 40k as Magic the collectible card game with 3d cards are all aspects of the fix. Finer grained terrain and cover rules, these would help as well. But the big issue seems to be people focused on the deck building phase as just that, a way to use rare special tokens to exploit rules and tip the balance of the game in their favor instead of collecting cool stuff and letting the game playnout on the table. So now it comes down to how many cards can i play before my opponent so that I can stop him playing any at all. Fist turn alpha strike entire armies now death stars... Justyuck.
OP if you opponent is of this mindset, then either ask him to change his mind or IMO drop the dude and spend your time developing other relationships. MtG reminds me of cat piss and stale socks. I can't stand it and the fact that it has infected this venerable wargame. Insidious as it is, this mindset seems to have infected your opponent as well. So one question, does the dude play MtG?

No he doesnt play MtG but I do lol I can't just drop him either, hes my best friend hahaha thanks for the advice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Murenius wrote:
Could you maybe post your full list? This would make it easier to see if your army composition is a problem or not. Your experience seems to be shared by quite a few players (*cough* me *cough*) who started this edition by rebuilding their old lists. You have to play your army to its strengths in 8th edition (e.g. running characters with auras behind a few units. Or, Wave Serpent spam ).

Yes the next game I play I will post my list and board setup (picture). The Eldar list I ran was garbage... I may have mentioned it.. I told him I wante to play test some Harlequins for a commission job im doing... well my buddy took advantage knowing I cant transport them, as I dont have a harlequin vehicle, took advantage.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Farseer_V2 wrote:
If I may - OP - what would you like to get out of the hobby? I ask because I am a very competitive gamer (which despite the Casual At All Costing in this thread isn't a bad thing) and it sounds like that's also what your regular opponent is interested in. The question that I think would be most valuable to find the answer to is what drives you to play 40k? Are you a competitive guy, are you interested in tournaments and making 'hard' lists? Or do you have another driver for your hobby?

Once we know the answer to that it will be easier to offer reasonable advice that isn't condescending (i.e. that you're bad) or preachy (i.e. anyone interested in competitive play is contributing to the degradation of the hobby).

Or just play a game with a tight ruleset that caters to all types of gamers. There's a fallacy that poorly written rulesets such as 40K promote casual gaming, when actually it makes it a lot harder to arrange a game due to all of the different variables that have to be negotiated. My go-to game is Infinity. One question is all it takes - what mission shall we play? Due to being such a well written ruleset it lends itself very well to narrative and casual gaming at the same time as having a thriving tournament scene which allows players from all around the world to turn up to a tournament [Interplanetario] and throw down knowing only the missions [and points level but unless otherwise stated it's always 300 points]. When I used to play 40k it required discussion after discussion and negotiation of house rules. Even after 3 editions of superheavies being in the core game some people still think there is a discussion to be had about whether the other person should get to use their expensive toys or not, and I've even seen arguments on batreps about whether FW should be included, something that I thought had been laid to bed years ago. 40K has never been about producing a balanced ruleset, it has always been a vehicle to sell models. Rogue Trader even required a Games Master. People really need to stop trying to make 40K something it's not and has never been.

The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes." The only competing game that comes close IMO and is still a miniatures game is Flames of War with its innumerable different supplement rulebooks. I've tried other games, and with Warmahordes it was like

"OK, I think I want to play as many of those big dragon monsters as possible."

"Well, then you're kind of locked into this specific caster, and you need this this and this other supporting unit in your army, then you can field 4 big monsters of your choice in a standard competitive game."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

As others have said, this is a common problem with the IGOUGO. Unless there is a lot of terrain, or some way for the 2nd player to retaliate (like in Infinity), the player who goes first can usually cripple their opponent, removing huge chunks of their army before they can be used.

That said, things are not as bad as they where in 7th (AKA, insta-delete turn 1)

A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Also trying to get my hands on a Defiler and/or a Predator. I used a Landraider in one of our games but man its a point sink, it is durable though.

As it stands now, and has been since I have played- Land Raiders are a point sink for what they do.

I say this, but oddly enough I've had fantastic luck with the Repulsor. But it's honestly the only vehicle I've ever had where I need a checklist of all the weapons on it, so I don't forget to shoot one.

 bullyboy wrote:
40K has always poorly handled the first turn. There should be a mechanic that reduces the amount of firepower that can be dished out.

This has been touched on a few times in this thread, but wouldn't this just transfer the "alpha strike" potential to the player going second, since they'd get the first turn of firing at full effect? Seems to me that wouldn't address the "problem" insofar as some people see it, but rather just shift it somewhere else.

 Kawauso wrote:
This has been touched on a few times in this thread, but wouldn't this just transfer the "alpha strike" potential to the player going second, since they'd get the first turn of firing at full effect? Seems to me that wouldn't address the "problem" insofar as some people see it, but rather just shift it somewhere else.

It would. I always eat the dust if my opponent gets First Turn. I've made a habit of playing rather defensively and keeping my heavy-hitters tucked into good cover, or investing heavily in things that can deep strike later in the game.

Every new edition of a GW game is the same, a different (or often the same) group of players come to every single thread spreading their hate over and over again.

This thread is a perfect example: "I'm having trouble winning a 40k game, please help."

"40k sucks play a different game". Awesome advice guys, very useful.

We get it, you don't like igoyougo, or you think 40k can't be played competitively, or this edition sucks, or whatever your concern is. Certainly worthy of a topic somewhere on the 40k forum, and shockingly there are several such topics already open like that (go to the 30 page thread on why igougo sucks and 40k needs alternating activations). Or, even better play Infinity or Flames of War or Warmachine or Bolt Action or the litany of other tabletop games and enjoy them on the appropriate forums. But this topic is someone asking for advice on 40k specifically so your comments are off topic and completely unnecessary.

For new players and casual players alpha strike and 1st turn in general is a huge barrier. There are quite a few ways to combat this, many of which have been mentioned in between the 40k moaners. Furthermore for ANY game there is always going to be an issue when a casual player like the OP goes up against someone else going balls to the wall hardcore. That is universal. Don't try telling this guy he is losing because 40k sucks, regardless of whether 40k sucks its just not true.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kawauso wrote:
This has been touched on a few times in this thread, but wouldn't this just transfer the "alpha strike" potential to the player going second, since they'd get the first turn of firing at full effect? Seems to me that wouldn't address the "problem" insofar as some people see it, but rather just shift it somewhere else.

It would. I always eat the dust if my opponent gets First Turn. I've made a habit of playing rather defensively and keeping my heavy-hitters tucked into good cover, or investing heavily in things that can deep strike later in the game.

Troop transports are the key. If they have to devote a lot of long ranged resources to alpha the transports, there isn't much left to kill the guys they were carrying.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

1) Starfleet Battles. (And yes, some ships do get variable loadouts. Orion Pirates are the prime example of this)
2) Brikwars.

tripchimeras wrote:
Every new edition of a GW game is the same, a different (or often the same) group of players come to every single thread spreading their hate over and over again.

This thread is a perfect example: "I'm having trouble winning a 40k game, please help."

"40k sucks play a different game". Awesome advice guys, very useful.

We get it, you don't like igoyougo, or you think 40k can't be played competitively, or this edition sucks, or whatever your concern is. Certainly worthy of a topic somewhere on the 40k forum, and shockingly there are several such topics already open like that (go to the 30 page thread on why igougo sucks and 40k needs alternating activations). Or, even better play Infinity or Flames of War or Warmachine or Bolt Action or the litany of other tabletop games and enjoy them on the appropriate forums. But this topic is someone asking for advice on 40k specifically so your comments are off topic and completely unnecessary.

For new players and casual players alpha strike and 1st turn in general is a huge barrier. There are quite a few ways to combat this, many of which have been mentioned in between the 40k moaners. Furthermore for ANY game there is always going to be an issue when a casual player like the OP goes up against someone else going balls to the wall hardcore. That is universal. Don't try telling this guy he is losing because 40k sucks, regardless of whether 40k sucks its just not true.

If exalting did anything, I would give you an exalt. Instead, have a hearty thumbs up:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

1) Starfleet Battles. (And yes, some ships do get variable loadouts. Orion Pirates are the prime example of this)
2) Brikwars.

1) Must be a super popular game since it has both balance and options for everything! I'll get to playing it right now, as soon as I find the options for superheavy tanks... (it's gotta have them somewhere, it has so many options!)

2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This is the first time I've heard of Brikwars.

Okay, Wal-Mart. Your toy section is about to get PILLAGED.

Also, I'm working with a couple of friends to draft up a Skirmish game using 3.75 inch action figures and a D10 system. 'Small' games require the player to use one figure (and Marauderinc.com has a sweet-ass 'Task Force' figure line where you can pretty much custom-order your idea 'GI Joe'). My concept involves 3 play modes- player vs. player, player(s) vs. Zombies (controlled by LOS and 'noise' mechanic similar to Zombicide), player(s) vs. enemy goon squad (controlled by another player, with randomly generated loadouts for each goon).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This is the first time I've heard of Brikwars.

Okay, Wal-Mart. Your toy section is about to get PILLAGED.

Also, I'm working with a couple of friends to draft up a Skirmish game using 3.75 inch action figures and a D10 system. 'Small' games require the player to use one figure (and Marauderinc.com has a sweet-ass 'Task Force' figure line where you can pretty much custom-order your idea 'GI Joe'). My concept involves 3 play modes- player vs. player, player(s) vs. Zombies (controlled by LOS and 'noise' mechanic similar to Zombicide), player(s) vs. enemy goon squad (controlled by another player, with randomly generated loadouts for each goon).

See, that sounds like a fun game, but not one I'd play because it's just not at the scale I'm interested in. Most games have that problem for me - they don't scratch my itch. I tried to play Warmachine a while ago, for example, and for a game called Warmachine, the war machines were not very good.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, that sounds like a fun game, but not one I'd play because it's just not at the scale I'm interested in. Most games have that problem for me - they don't scratch my itch. I tried to play Warmachine a while ago, for example, and for a game called Warmachine, the war machines were not very good.

I understand.

Also, while some folks have complained that 'telling the guy to try a different game is bad advice', TBH... sometimes that's the best advice.

I had a lot of annoyances trying to play Warhammer Fantasy. It simply was not my game. I did not like what Mordheim had to offer, either (wasn't a fan of any of the units). But someone said, "It might not be your cup of tea, try Frostgrave"

...and here I am, commissioning my warband for that game. Because, really- I love the fact that it says something like, "You need a wizard and something to represent his hired goons"... and you can literally use any models you want. Get the AOS models, get some cheap Reaper minis, hell- one guy used various Dark Eldar models. And it's an AWESOME game, the hard part is getting proper terrain.

The coolest I saw was a multi-level terrain thing this guy built that was like, 4 feet tall and as long as a 40k table. With a working waterfall, fog, bubbling slime, and various lights.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

1) Starfleet Battles. (And yes, some ships do get variable loadouts. Orion Pirates are the prime example of this)
2) Brikwars.

1) Must be a super popular game since it has both balance and options for everything! I'll get to playing it right now, as soon as I find the options for superheavy tanks... (it's gotta have them somewhere, it has so many options!)

2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

1) I chose SFB because it doesn't revolve around Special Characters, and has at least a few weapons that correlate with 40k weapons (Hydran Fusion weapons are basically Melta, Phaser-Gs are basically Scatter. Lasers). It's interesting though IMO because it does illustrate a difference in how 40k and other games do "options." Meaning, while 40k has a lot of different units, most of those units more or less only do "one thing." Meaning the decision-making skews more on the list-building side compared to the play side.

The best example of this is the Leman Russ. In previous editions, the Vanquisher was an upgrade to the standard Russ, and could choose regular shots or Vanquisher rounds. Now, it's one or the other. Imagine a game where a Russ had the choice of HE rounds, sabots, smoke shells, or beehive rounds. Or if the game had the general mechanics to allow for assorted "unconventional" uses of equipment (Ex: Using Helfrost weapons to freeze rivers for vehicle crossings). Alas.

Warmahordes does have some extra "options" in-game (Power Attacks, Focus Boosting), but the unit options are set in stone. Starfleet Battles is interesting (read: Simulationist and obtuse as hell), because there are an insane amount of options in-game. Your ship can deploy Shuttles to act as phaser vectors, load them up with explosives, load them up with comm-jamming equipment to act as "Wild Weasels", or load them up with Marines to act as boarding troops, or researching space monsters in scenarios that call for it. This is done in-game rather than at ship construction, but you're eating into the same resource pool. Plasma Torpedoes can be fired as is, or "dead loaded" with decoy rounds, split early as a "plasma shotgun", or focused in "beam" form so they act as a direct-fire rather than as a counter. You get a wide variety of options in-game and they're not always simple mathhammer optimization (like, say, Sternguard ammo).

2) Brikwars is perhaps the most literal example for a game where land-ships can fight medieval knights with swords. Especially if you put wheels on said Pirate Ships. The funniest thing in the older version though was the rules for mass-drivers. Though not necessarily effective, there are few things funnier than winning grapple rolls against your opponent, carrying off his models, then usin them as trebuchet ammo.

The new terrain rules and true los including all parts of the model/unit have made standard mid-sized and small terrain features (95% of them) close to useless to hide behind. The suggestion to make "smart use of terrain" falls apart when a tank can shoot your 30-man squad if it's antenna has line of sight to the top of the banner of at least one model. Even a single window or crack in the wall of the first floor makes a ruin completely unable to block line of sight because some part of model will be able to "see" through it no matter how you try.

I suggest to not rely on terrain and los vs alpha-strikes and 1-st turn - terrain is not consistent and will almost never work if the opponent can move a model and shoot (and he most often can). Unless you bring your own terrain that's specifically designed to block los - like a huge square building you're gona place in the middle of the board...but than the opponent might not like it at all cause he's spent a lot of time and money to build a list that's designed to work in the current terrain-less enviroment and shoot you off the board. Just focus on listbuilding yourself - bring more resilient stuff, less units to go first or more reserves. Dish what doesn't work in this enviroment if you want to win. The game is designed in a way that you have to counter it on the listbuilding step and not when the game has allready started. Tailor your lists. Call it reconnaisance if you please.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
IGOUGO is the problem and won't ever be fixed.

I second this,
As an experiment run the same lists with your friend but instead of the typical 'turn by turn' structure, do a 'unit by unit' based structure. During the shooting phase, for example, you select a Unit and then your opponent will select a Unit to shoot with. Some minor tweaking might be needed to make it flow the best, but the Rules are not that poorly written that you will have trouble playing with 'unit by unit' format over a turn by turn one. It will also tell you exactly what sort of friend you are playing with, for if he demands to go back to the old format and refuses to even entertain what is likely to be a more fair fight....

 koooaei wrote:
The new terrain rules and true los including all parts of the model/unit have made standard mid-sized and small terrain features (95% of them) close to useless to hide behind. The suggestion to make "smart use of terrain" falls apart when a tank can shoot your 30-man squad if it's antenna has line of sight to the top of the banner of at least one model. Even a single window or crack in the wall of the first floor makes a ruin completely unable to block line of sight because some part of model will be able to "see" through it no matter how you try.

I suggest to not rely on terrain and los vs alpha-strikes and 1-st turn - terrain is not consistent and will almost never work if the opponent can move a model and shoot (and he most often can). Unless you bring your own terrain that's specifically designed to block los - like a huge square building you're gona place in the middle of the board...but than the opponent might not like it at all cause he's spent a lot of time and money to build a list that's designed to work in the current terrain-less enviroment and shoot you off the board. Just focus on listbuilding yourself - bring more resilient stuff, less units to go first or more reserves. Dish what doesn't work in this enviroment if you want to win. The game is designed in a way that you have to counter it on the listbuilding step and not when the game has allready started. Tailor your lists. Call it reconnaisance if you please.

Geederps dropped the ball on terrain this edition.

The FLG guys have stated multiple times that LOS blocking terrain is essential for 8th games to function correctly.

 koooaei wrote:
The new terrain rules and true los including all parts of the model/unit have made standard mid-sized and small terrain features (95% of them) close to useless to hide behind. The suggestion to make "smart use of terrain" falls apart when a tank can shoot your 30-man squad if it's antenna has line of sight to the top of the banner of at least one model. Even a single window or crack in the wall of the first floor makes a ruin completely unable to block line of sight because some part of model will be able to "see" through it no matter how you try.

I suggest to not rely on terrain and los vs alpha-strikes and 1-st turn - terrain is not consistent and will almost never work if the opponent can move a model and shoot (and he most often can). Unless you bring your own terrain that's specifically designed to block los - like a huge square building you're gona place in the middle of the board...but than the opponent might not like it at all cause he's spent a lot of time and money to build a list that's designed to work in the current terrain-less enviroment and shoot you off the board. Just focus on listbuilding yourself - bring more resilient stuff, less units to go first or more reserves. Dish what doesn't work in this enviroment if you want to win. The game is designed in a way that you have to counter it on the listbuilding step and not when the game has allready started. Tailor your lists. Call it reconnaisance if you please.

I've noticed that players which build their list around really narrow builds/strategies can get really forceful or whiney if you try to use terrain or deployments that negate their chosen playstyle.

Expect complaints of 'not official', 'unfair' or even 'cheating' and in the future either attempts to 'ban' certain terrain pieces or the creation of their own crazy terrain pieces (think the whfb dwarf gunline player who tries to put a 24 inch by 9 inch impassable lavafield that doesn't block line of sight in front of where he will place his army).

Others have made this point already, but it can not be stressed enough: use LOS-blocking terrain, in different sizes, and lots of it. If you don't have some: build or buy it. Some soda/beer cans, cleaned and appropriately painted (some basic colour, and a metal drybrush looks good already) are an easy starting point. Google "easy tabletop terrain 40K" for a ton of more inspiration.

If you prefer to use GW scenery - which often does not block LOS completely - talk to your opponent and decide to treat certain walls as "these block LOS completely from this to this point, even if there are windows/doors/cracks in it". There are some weird abstractions in the ruleset, you can add another.

To lessen the impact of shooting in the first turns, you could use the "Dawn Raid" rule (page 194).

My final suggestion would be to just plan your list and ingame tactics as if you would always go second, with going first being your plan B. That way you never get caught on the wrong foot, and can also take full advantage of all other advice given so far.

To complete your LOS blocking terrain, you might try somerhing from Bolt Action: decide that thungs such as woods, ruined little houses and so on are simply no see through scenery. For exemple, we assume that the smoke over the ruins hibders visibility on the target, and that dense woods would not allow for more than a glimpse at an ennemy unit -which is not enough to pick a target through it.

Otherwise, once again, i can tell you that this game is far better designed ruleswise than 40k. Apart from flanking (which isn't amlowed anymore in some missions) therz are very few ways to break the game, but most lists you can come up with could prove rewzrding if played correctly, not only over bloated with op stuff ones.

However, it does not habe the rich setting of 40k. So playing a narrative campaign in Bolt Action feels so so, whereas it's great fun in 40k, and can -as precised above- be way better balanced than the original ruleset alone thanks to heavy houserules you are sure to take in account.

What i mean is, through that exemple, that suggesting that one change the games he plays is a good advice, because not every game is enjoyable the same way.

the_scotsman wrote:


The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

Infinity has a tight ruleset that is generally considered to be well balanced, and has a huge amount of options in army composition. It lends itself extremely well to competitive gaming, and also casual or narrative gaming. They've just released a narrative campaign pack for the Manga models, and have done the same in the past, and have an excellent tournament scene.

I've found that I've always been in with a chance at winning an Infinity game, whereas with 40K a lot of the time I might as well have given up after turn 1.

In terms of list building, one guy did an experiment with Infinity where a very experienced player was given an entirely random list with a lot of seeming redundancies and a less experienced player was allowed to customise a list. The experienced player won every time. It really isn't the list, it's how you play it and your skill level.

I'm using Infinity as an example of how a tight ruleset is more conducive to all styles of gaming. There doesn't have to be a trade-off at all.

In regards to the 'GTFO 40Kisawesomeandtherearenoproblems crowd, a lot of the advice for the OP has been to use lots of additional house rules, mostly to get around the very poorly written terrain rules, or to beg the opponent not to use certain models. It seems far more reasonable to suggest trying out a different game to me.

With little work TRUE LOS terrain can be made.
I made a factory that is basically a 1' cube with details all over it to look nice but there is no looking through it.
Boarding up ruin windows may have to be an added "detail" to ruins.
I was already working on a staggered forest line (with all gaps filled between) to plunk down through the middle of tree area terrain so it can at least be a true blocker.
May look a bit silly no matter what I do but it would be nice to have a forest block line of sight again.

I do admit, the terrain rules are the worst they have ever been compared to prior editions... why?
Why change what they got right, while changing what they got very wrong and make no attempt at the I-get-first-turn-I-win which has been a glaring issue in all editions?
They borrowed I feel a fair bit from Bolt Action (or the other way around?) so why not go with something similar to what makes that game great?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

Infinity has a tight ruleset that is generally considered to be well balanced, and has a huge amount of options in army composition. It lends itself extremely well to competitive gaming, and also casual or narrative gaming. They've just released a narrative campaign pack for the Manga models, and have done the same in the past, and have an excellent tournament scene.

I've found that I've always been in with a chance at winning an Infinity game, whereas with 40K a lot of the time I might as well have given up after turn 1.

In terms of list building, one guy did an experiment with Infinity where a very experienced player was given an entirely random list with a lot of seeming redundancies and a less experienced player was allowed to customise a list. The experienced player won every time. It really isn't the list, it's how you play it and your skill level.

I'm using Infinity as an example of how a tight ruleset is more conducive to all styles of gaming. There doesn't have to be a trade-off at all.

In regards to the 'GTFO 40Kisawesomeandtherearenoproblems crowd, a lot of the advice for the OP has been to use lots of additional house rules, mostly to get around the very poorly written terrain rules, or to beg the opponent not to use certain models. It seems far more reasonable to suggest trying out a different game to me.

Your experience of Infinity is different than mine. I tried to get into it, but there weren't enough options for army composition (though the scale I want to play at is probably different, and so this isn't a criticism of the game). Besides that, however:

The local community was awful. We tried to do a narrative campaign, and it fell apart. People argued about the rules, and fought about them. They argued about facing, about declaring camo tokens. We had a gentleman deploy a Katyusha drone launcher thingy inside of a building with no doors and windows, firing out with either a guided missile or even just suffering the -6, but they were invulnerable - except for grenades. People started doing the same thing with grenades, despite their short range, deploying inside of buildings with no doors or windows and the like. People nitpicked the gak out of the rules, and rules discussions took a good 30 minutes per dispute because of the sheer staggering complexity of the game. People brought lists that were 17 dudes and a huge Dog Soldier, and just spammed orders on the dog soldier while the others stood around and had a cigarette.

Honestly it was the worst "casual" gaming experience I've ever had, 40k included.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

Infinity has a tight ruleset that is generally considered to be well balanced, and has a huge amount of options in army composition. It lends itself extremely well to competitive gaming, and also casual or narrative gaming. They've just released a narrative campaign pack for the Manga models, and have done the same in the past, and have an excellent tournament scene.

I've found that I've always been in with a chance at winning an Infinity game, whereas with 40K a lot of the time I might as well have given up after turn 1.

In terms of list building, one guy did an experiment with Infinity where a very experienced player was given an entirely random list with a lot of seeming redundancies and a less experienced player was allowed to customise a list. The experienced player won every time. It really isn't the list, it's how you play it and your skill level.

I'm using Infinity as an example of how a tight ruleset is more conducive to all styles of gaming. There doesn't have to be a trade-off at all.

In regards to the 'GTFO 40Kisawesomeandtherearenoproblems crowd, a lot of the advice for the OP has been to use lots of additional house rules, mostly to get around the very poorly written terrain rules, or to beg the opponent not to use certain models. It seems far more reasonable to suggest trying out a different game to me.

No, most of the advice has been to play 8th as it was intended, a lot of terrain, use transports and line of sight to your advantage and understanding the rules to their fullest. Also that if you want to play casually maybe your opponent should as well or vise versa. No different then infinity. All the above example with infinity shows is that list building is not an essential part of the game, and infinity is not what I would call particularly customizabel either. Infinity also is a skirmish game with a small number of models, a significantly smaller miniature scale, a massive learning curve, and for a significant portion of geographic locations a non existent player base. The presumption that whatever other game people happen to play is identical to 40k except better is hilarious. If you are playing 40k: quality miniatures, massive scale, customization, lore, and list building are almost certainly priorities for you. 90% of the games people mention as alternatives forego most or all of these features. I play Malifaux, but despite it being an objectively more balanced game I am not running around screaming it as an alternative, because it shares essentially nothing in common with 40k's strengths and fills a completely different niche. Kings of War is one of the most balanced games I have ever played, but I also find it to be one of the most boring. Balance is not a substitution for "good". Sometimes Balance can actually be a negative to a certain extent. But all of that is besides the point.

Literally no one on this thread has said that 40k is awesome and has no problems. What we are saying is that you are in a 40k forum responding to a 40k question, saying that people shouldn't play 40k and should play infinity instead... Huge difference. Start a thread about why you think infinity is better then 40k, or a thread about the litany of issues with 8th edition and ways they can be solved, but this thread is about solutioning for a specific players issues. Solutions, may I add, that very much exist within the scope of the core rules if you are willing to take advantage of them. While technically "play a different game" may be a solution it is a bit baffling that so many people who supposedly have no interest in 40k and don't play it spend so much time ON A 40K FORUM.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Reading thru this thread it is clear that a return to RPG narrative elements whether in the form of missions or pregame discourse, a return to sportsmanship and army comp rules with no named characters, and generally not treating 40k as Magic the collectible card game with 3d cards are all aspects of the fix. Finer grained terrain and cover rules, these would help as well. But the big issue seems to be people focused on the deck building phase as just that, a way to use rare special tokens to exploit rules and tip the balance of the game in their favor instead of collecting cool stuff and letting the game playnout on the table. So now it comes down to how many cards can i play before my opponent so that I can stop him playing any at all. Fist turn alpha strike entire armies now death stars... Justyuck.
OP if you opponent is of this mindset, then either ask him to change his mind or IMO drop the dude and spend your time developing other relationships. MtG reminds me of cat piss and stale socks. I can't stand it and the fact that it has infected this venerable wargame. Insidious as it is, this mindset seems to have infected your opponent as well. So one question, does the dude play MtG?

No he doesnt play MtG but I do lol I can't just drop him either, hes my best friend hahaha thanks for the advice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Murenius wrote:
Could you maybe post your full list? This would make it easier to see if your army composition is a problem or not. Your experience seems to be shared by quite a few players (*cough* me *cough*) who started this edition by rebuilding their old lists. You have to play your army to its strengths in 8th edition (e.g. running characters with auras behind a few units. Or, Wave Serpent spam ).

Yes the next game I play I will post my list and board setup (picture). The Eldar list I ran was garbage... I may have mentioned it.. I told him I wante to play test some Harlequins for a commission job im doing... well my buddy took advantage knowing I cant transport them, as I dont have a harlequin vehicle, took advantage.

Well, maybe if you had taught me MtG then I wouldn't hate it so much.
Very cool reply.
I imagine you are a great person to hang out with.

If your friend is taking advantage of your lack of transports it still seems that he is in need of an attitude correction.
If my friend had an army at some disadvantage the last thing I would want to do is punish him for it...
So my advice remains unchanged regardless.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Your experience of Infinity is different than mine. I tried to get into it, but there weren't enough options for army composition (though the scale I want to play at is probably different, and so this isn't a criticism of the game). Besides that, however:

The local community was awful. We tried to do a narrative campaign, and it fell apart. People argued about the rules, and fought about them. They argued about facing, about declaring camo tokens. We had a gentleman deploy a Katyusha drone launcher thingy inside of a building with no doors and windows, firing out with either a guided missile or even just suffering the -6, but they were invulnerable - except for grenades. People started doing the same thing with grenades, despite their short range, deploying inside of buildings with no doors or windows and the like. People nitpicked the gak out of the rules, and rules discussions took a good 30 minutes per dispute because of the sheer staggering complexity of the game. People brought lists that were 17 dudes and a huge Dog Soldier, and just spammed orders on the dog soldier while the others stood around and had a cigarette.

Honestly it was the worst "casual" gaming experience I've ever had, 40k included.

In regards to your first point, taking vanilla Pan O as an example, there are 61 different unit types. Within each unit types there are sometimes as many as 9 different loadouts. Every option is viable depending on the mission or playstyle. If that's not enough options then I don't know what to say

LoF markings to indicate facing are non-negotiable. They are explicitly mentioned in the ITS rules for both tournaments and leagues. There shouldn't be any argument there.

Not exactly sure what you mean about declaring camo tokens but the rules state that the location of figures with hidden deployment must be written down [most people take a pic on their phone]. There is scope to lie about which camo marker represents which model but that's cheating, nothing to do with ambiguities in the rules.

Firing out buildings with no LoS is contentious, however if someone wants to waste all those orders spec firing or targeting one model and using guided ammunition then I am very happy for them to do so. I'll just play the mission and win every time.

Using cheerleaders and spamming orders on one model? Yep, that's the game. Dogface won't be scoring an objectives for you though. When link teams get factored in that sort of stuff happens less often.

Finally, I wouldn't consider a narrative campaign with multiple participants 'casual'. It sounds like poor planning on the part of the organiser to me by not ensuring the rules were adhered to or made explicit.

In terms of the complexity of the game, I agree, it is complex. It's why I love it - I've been playing for years and feel like I've only scratched the surface. I agree that it can be intimidating to a new player but CB have produced lots of excellent avenues into the game for new players, such as the two starter boxes and differentiating between basic and advanced rules. There's also lots of fan made stuff out there - GMG's Recon rules are also great.

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience, I would suggest trying the game again with a more experienced organiser - maybe contact your local Warcor to arrange an intro game.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Your experience of Infinity is different than mine. I tried to get into it, but there weren't enough options for army composition (though the scale I want to play at is probably different, and so this isn't a criticism of the game). Besides that, however:

The local community was awful. We tried to do a narrative campaign, and it fell apart. People argued about the rules, and fought about them. They argued about facing, about declaring camo tokens. We had a gentleman deploy a Katyusha drone launcher thingy inside of a building with no doors and windows, firing out with either a guided missile or even just suffering the -6, but they were invulnerable - except for grenades. People started doing the same thing with grenades, despite their short range, deploying inside of buildings with no doors or windows and the like. People nitpicked the gak out of the rules, and rules discussions took a good 30 minutes per dispute because of the sheer staggering complexity of the game. People brought lists that were 17 dudes and a huge Dog Soldier, and just spammed orders on the dog soldier while the others stood around and had a cigarette.

Honestly it was the worst "casual" gaming experience I've ever had, 40k included.

In regards to your first point, taking vanilla Pan O as an example, there are 61 different unit types. Within each unit types there are sometimes as many as 9 different loadouts. Every option is viable depending on the mission or playstyle. If that's not enough options then I don't know what to say

LoF markings to indicate facing are non-negotiable. They are explicitly mentioned in the ITS rules for both tournaments and leagues. There shouldn't be any argument there.

Not exactly sure what you mean about declaring camo tokens but the rules state that the location of figures with hidden deployment must be written down [most people take a pic on their phone]. There is scope to lie about which camo marker represents which model but that's cheating, nothing to do with ambiguities in the rules.

Firing out buildings with no LoS is contentious, however if someone wants to waste all those orders spec firing or targeting one model and using guided ammunition then I am very happy for them to do so. I'll just play the mission and win every time.

Using cheerleaders and spamming orders on one model? Yep, that's the game. Dogface won't be scoring an objectives for you though. When link teams get factored in that sort of stuff happens less often.

Finally, I wouldn't consider a narrative campaign with multiple participants 'casual'. It sounds like poor planning on the part of the organiser to me by not ensuring the rules were adhered to or made explicit.

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience, I would suggest trying the game again with a more experienced organiser - maybe contact your local Warcor to arrange an intro game.

It's not really "not enough" options, but rather "not the right" options. I'm a treadhead and like tanks, and while heavy armoured vehicles exist, apparently tanks do not.

It wasn't the LOF markers that people argued about, it was whether or not something was in a facing. People would measure with the side of their tape measure, then argue about it, then inevitably the model gets bumped and EVERYONE is grumpy.

You're right, it's cheating, but you can't know if they're cheating or not without starting an argument, and then ... well here we go. yay arguments!

"Just play the mission" is excellent advice to win but I want to have fun, and don't really care about winning. What's not fun is having indestructible enemy units just kill mine because 'reasons' that essentially boil down to 'over-complex ruleset'.

Again, dogface not getting objectives is neat and all and will lose the mission, but it doesn't reduce the frustration of playing against that army. It feels silly, unrealistic, and pedantic, especially if you on the other side are trying to build a realistic TO&E instead of a derpy gimmick list.

And if you don't consider a narrative campaign "casual gaming" I don't know what to tell you. A narrative campaign is literally the most casual thing I can think of - bring realistic, story-friendly stuff, write awesome fluff, etc.

And I left the area, club, and game, long ago. I just wanted to point out that bad, frustrating, frankly silly interactions happen regardless of the specific game you're playing, and infinity is not a panacea that somehow cures jerkassery.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And I left the area, club, and game, long ago. I just wanted to point out that bad, frustrating, frankly silly interactions happen regardless of the specific game you're playing, and infinity is not a panacea that somehow cures jerkassery.

I didn't say it did. The problems you mentioned were with the players, not the rules. You started playing a game that didn't have tanks despite liking tanks and required a focus on missions whereas your idea of fun is rolling lots of dice and hoping for above average rolls of 3s and 4s; then didn't like it.

infinity isn't for everyone, but, like lots of other games, is worth a try if 40K isn't doing what you want it to.

I wonder if it would be possible to mod Gorkamorka rules to allow tanks in that game. It would be amusing to have a game where your "Warband" was a single tank crew.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And I left the area, club, and game, long ago. I just wanted to point out that bad, frustrating, frankly silly interactions happen regardless of the specific game you're playing, and infinity is not a panacea that somehow cures jerkassery.

I didn't say it did. The problems you mentioned were with the players, not the rules. You started playing a game that didn't have tanks despite liking tanks and required a focus on missions whereas your idea of fun is rolling lots of dice and hoping for above average rolls of 3s and 4s; then didn't like it.

infinity isn't for everyone, but, like lots of other games, is worth a try if 40K isn't doing what you want it to.

But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

But OP's friend isn't a jerk.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

No, the problem is the rules. His friend is following the rules, unless I've missed something?

tripchimeras wrote:
Kings of War is one of the most balanced games I have ever played, but I also find it to be one of the most boring. Balance is not a substitution for "good". Sometimes Balance can actually be a negative to a certain extent.

My friends and I have played a multitude of games through the decades and tried rewriting our own rules many times.
We have found one thing in common almost every time: you make a perfectly balanced game that is utterly fair and it somehow all devolves into being boring.
It was kinda the litmus test for these new rules when I started hearing comments about being boring BUT people are playing in droves compared to before.
We found that if you add one special rule that borders on "broken" for each army to give it flavor, you can then have a (largely) balanced game with each army trying to leverage their advantageous rule.
It was when 6th and 7th drove home the "mix anything you want" which seemed to kill the advantages and disadvantages inherent with each army.

I am slowly getting a handle on what works and what does not with these new rules and was surprised just how much moral kills models.
Concentrated fire or really nasty alpha-strikes are what appear to pay interest (through failed moral rolls) in the game.
Unless you are Orks with gangs of 30 within 6" of each other or a Warboss...

I would say this game has better playability now than I have seen in ALL prior editions.
Maybe it just plain suits me, it is not all roses but the main bones of it work quite well and I have had faster and more enjoyable games than I have had with 40k in decades.
Other people's results may vary.

The other games mentioned I find are extremely good but are so different (Malifaux and Infinity) that I do not consider them a competing product all that much.
We have reasonable representation of those other guys at my FLGS and they seem to be outnumbering Warmahordes by a fair margin.
40k prior to 8th was some 8 guys.
NOW, we are looking at 16(ish) and was just talking to 2 new guys wanting to get into it last week.

I think those fine arguments of "play a real game not 40k" are pretty invalid now.
It is the hot product lately, has good starting packs, plenty of old and new player support and a company that appears to care again.
Find your fun with this game.
If you don't now, you never will.

Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

But OP's friend isn't a jerk.

Someone who doesn't care if their friend is having fun or not is a jerk. If they won't tone down their list or army swap or whatever, that's on them.

tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

No, the problem is the rules. His friend is following the rules, unless I've missed something?

You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. So the suggestion is play another one which has better written rules and greater balance, rather than imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table. Which is the point I was originally making.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. So the suggestion is play another one which has better written rules and greater balance, rather than imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table. Which is the point I was originally making.

Isn't "changing the game" actually a more extreme change than "imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table?"

That's like "I need to defend my house." "You should use a shotgun!" "NO SHOTGUNS ARE BAD! Bazookas are much more what you're looking for!"

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. So the suggestion is play another one which has better written rules and greater balance, rather than imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table. Which is the point I was originally making.

That is your interpretation of his problem though. What countless people have noted is that his fundamental problem is that he is not using enough terrain (considering you are suggesting Infinity as a solution, you of all people should know that is not going to change with a game switch). Furthermore, there are a litany of strategic solutions to his problem that come from experience and army design. Guess what? If he played a game of infinity against you tomorrow he would likely lose just as bad, for the same identical reasons of not yet having the toolset to deal with your strategies. You are taking your opinion of 40k's weaknesses and attributing them, imo wrongly, to the issues he is experiencing himself. Moreover, all of his problems currently would be felt as much if not moreso if he was facing a similar situation in Infinity, a game requiring even more terrain then 40k, and with a much steeper learning curve and player skill divide.

tripchimeras wrote:

That is your interpretation of his problem though. What countless people have noted is that his fundamental problem is that he is not using enough terrain (considering you are suggesting Infinity as a solution, you of all people should know that is not going to change with a game switch). Furthermore, there are a litany of strategic solutions to his problem that come from experience and army design. Guess what? If he played a game of infinity against you tomorrow he would likely lose just as bad, for the same identical reasons of not yet having the toolset to deal with your strategies. You are taking your opinion of 40k's weaknesses and attributing them, imo wrongly, to the issues he is experiencing himself. Moreover, all of his problems currently would be felt as much if not moreso if he was facing a similar situation in Infinity, a game requiring even more terrain then 40k, and with a much steeper learning curve and player skill divide.

Terrain is included in the rules for Infinity. There are two pages dedicated to explaining how to set up terrain [including example pictures] so that it is conducive to a good gaming experience for both players. The starter boxes include the correct amount of terrain for the size of the mat provided, and show you how to set it up for each mission. No need to house rule; it's all there for you as it has been clearly thought out. Is the same true of 40K?

In addition, should the OP switch to playing Infinity he wouldn't lose against me because the game is inherently imbalanced, or have already lost at the list making stage. I've lost to less experienced players before when I got caught up killing stuff rather than focussing on objectives, or my big bad unit went down to an unlucky crit. Which is as it should be. He would at least be in with a chance, and wouldn't have to ask his opponent not to use certain models or apply house rules.

Anyway, there are plenty of other games out there besides Infinity that might provide what the OP is looking for. In X-Wing you all have access to the same units; this also has a flourishing tournament and casual scene. Bushido, KoW, Guildball, etc. etc. etc. Or he could just keep getting frustrated playing a game that doesn't meet his requirements. Definition of madness and all that.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Terrain is included in the rules for Infinity. There are two pages dedicated to explaining how to set up terrain [including example pictures] so that it is conducive to a good gaming experience for both players. The starter boxes include the correct amount of terrain for the size of the mat provided, and show you how to set it up for each mission. No need to house rule; it's all there for you as it has been clearly thought out. Is the same true of 40K?

Funny that.
It used to be insanely detailed of quantity and board sections and rolling for it.
We may still be in the beta stage as pointed out...

In addition, should the OP switch to playing Infinity he wouldn't lose against me because the game is inherently imbalanced, or have already lost at the list making stage.

I do agree that the risk is much higher as you increase the variety of units and their capabilities like taking a knife to a gun-fight.
Exclusively squad skirmish battles mitigate that hugely.
It also inherently can be quite limiting depending on the size of game people may prefer.

I've lost to less experienced players before when I got caught up killing stuff rather than focusing on objectives, or my big bad unit went down to an unlucky crit.

Pretty sure I have experienced the same thing playing 40k recently.

Which is as it should be.

That is indicating a game system that leans on a fair bit of random results which is the great leveling mechanic of experienced players vs. new.

He would at least be in with a chance, and wouldn't have to ask his opponent not to use certain models or apply house rules.

I am pretty sure the game is limited to a squad so you do not have the complexity of vehicles or aircraft.

Anyway, there are plenty of other games out there besides Infinity that might provide what the OP is looking for. In X-Wing you all have access to the same units; this also has a flourishing tournament and casual scene. Bushido, KoW, Guildball, etc. etc. etc.

Plus if one MUST play GW there is Armageddon Shadow War or the announced Necromunda or the old but good Spacehulk.

Or he could just keep getting frustrated playing a game that doesn't meet his requirements.

Which it has not been determined if this is a problem that would be common to any game or not.

Definition of madness and all that.

Oddly, with all the dice rolling you could potentially play the same thing and get a different result.

Yes, one can play Infinity.
It looks good on paper.
Is a science fiction setting which is cool.
I played it twice and went "Meh".
For MANY others it is an awesome game.
I played some 20 odd games of Malifaux and it is a really different game.
I like it to a point but the models I hugely enjoy.
40k for big stomping carnage games is my go-to all the more now.
Through 6th and 7th I leaned on SW Armada and SW X-wing to get me through those "hard times".
That is not the case now.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. S

What does lack of balance have to do with it?

OP says himself that the army he took in the most recent game was weak and he knew it. If you're going to deliberately take a weak army then you need to arrange this with your opponent or expect to get pounded.

It doesn't matter how balanced the game is - every combination of list building choices won't be equally powerful. If you deliberately take a sub optimal combination then what do you expect to happen?

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Hey all, i'm just wondering if anyone is running into the same problem I'm having. I play a certain friend of mine who always runs Ultramarines or GK/Ultramarines. i set up all the table, the terrain, etc at my house... and I usually like to play around with different lists. Total setup takes around a hour to a hour and a half.

The last game we played.... his first turn with Ultramarines, he took out, a squad of 5 Dark Reapers, and 2 Night Spinners, a squad of 5 harlequin and a couple guardian with a Heavy platform..... I called the game after that...

The game previous to that ... I used deathguard... and I called the game at the end of his second turn... again he started this game first as well.

Is first turn in this game that huge... or are Ultramarines and GK that good?

He also uses Battlescribe putting his lists together. Does this calculate points accurately?

Thanks all... after these last few games i honestly dont see the point playing against his armies anymore.. The setup time.. along with 0 fun of getting my butt kicked doesnt seem worth it.

I don't have these issues since my group went back to 3rd Edition. Alpha strike in 3rd was nowhere NEAR as vicious as it is now.

Don't listen to all the people talking about "different mindsets" and "find another partner".


#1: try to write decent lists. Even in fluff bunny land, you can write a list that does not outright suck. The list you mentioned, by your own admission, was far from the best list you could've written that day.

#2: try to understand the power level of your opponent's list: is it really tournament level, or not - show the list on dakka, ask around

#3: if it happens that his list is (close to) a 100% optimized tournament build, you have three options:

#A: play 100% optimized with him

#B: play with a points handicap reflecting the relative optimization of your lists

#C: play narrative games with him if he's interested in that

1) play with enough terrain
2) run wave serpents

job done.

I would put good money on there being advanced terrain rules in Chapter Approved.

GK first strike is brutal. I play someone who runs 2-3 stormravens, Draigo, the new character with the hammer, a librarian and 5-6 assassins. Draigo gets buffed and is in your face turn 1 or 2 (2++ save if power goes off), plus the assassins are all over you.

You're getting smitted (smitten?) by 3-4 psychers, plus all the other shenanigans. The list is VERY hard to beat. You can't shoot the characters as he puts one of those Cullexus (sp) assassins out front, so it's 6+ to hit no matter what.

Even though you can usually kill the assassins, some of them explode like a vehicle and do more damage.

It's a very competitive list.

EDIT: I meant to add that with ravens and deep strike, LOS isn't too much of a help. I tend to cluster my units around Bobby G or whoever is giving rerolls.

 3orangewhips wrote:
GK first strike is brutal. I play someone who runs 2-3 stormravens, Draigo, the new character with the hammer, a librarian and 5-6 assassins. Draigo gets buffed and is in your face turn 1 or 2 (2++ save if power goes off), plus the assassins are all over you.

You're getting smitted (smitten?) by 3-4 psychers, plus all the other shenanigans. The list is VERY hard to beat. You can't shoot the characters as he puts one of those Cullexus (sp) assassins out front, so it's 6+ to hit no matter what.

Even though you can usually kill the assassins, some of them explode like a vehicle and do more damage.

It's a very competitive list.

EDIT: I meant to add that with ravens and deep strike, LOS isn't too much of a help. I tend to cluster my units around Bobby G or whoever is giving rerolls.

sounds super swingy to me. Definitely something some lists will have no answers to, my current primaris themed list would have none for example. Sounds like something a jerkoff would bring to his local store to "pwn noobs" then get delusional and take it to a tournament only to get 20-0'd in 3 of the 5 game.

Edit: That's the thing about ALL wargames, if you want to be a jerk you always can be. If you are in a casual environment and know the people around you aren't playing hardcore you can pretty easily make a game no fun for anyone. Doesn't necessarily the game as a whole is broken, just means you found the weakness in your local scene and decided you care so little about having fun and so much about winning that you are willing to spend 300-400 bucks to wreck it.

From another eldar player that plays unorthodox list, losing will happen a lot. Eldar do require a lot of fines and require the right list to counter an opponent. There is no one size fits all list for eldar without going tourny ready.

 jeff white wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Reading thru this thread it is clear that a return to RPG narrative elements whether in the form of missions or pregame discourse, a return to sportsmanship and army comp rules with no named characters, and generally not treating 40k as Magic the collectible card game with 3d cards are all aspects of the fix. Finer grained terrain and cover rules, these would help as well. But the big issue seems to be people focused on the deck building phase as just that, a way to use rare special tokens to exploit rules and tip the balance of the game in their favor instead of collecting cool stuff and letting the game playnout on the table. So now it comes down to how many cards can i play before my opponent so that I can stop him playing any at all. Fist turn alpha strike entire armies now death stars... Justyuck.
OP if you opponent is of this mindset, then either ask him to change his mind or IMO drop the dude and spend your time developing other relationships. MtG reminds me of cat piss and stale socks. I can't stand it and the fact that it has infected this venerable wargame. Insidious as it is, this mindset seems to have infected your opponent as well. So one question, does the dude play MtG?

No he doesnt play MtG but I do lol I can't just drop him either, hes my best friend hahaha thanks for the advice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Murenius wrote:
Could you maybe post your full list? This would make it easier to see if your army composition is a problem or not. Your experience seems to be shared by quite a few players (*cough* me *cough*) who started this edition by rebuilding their old lists. You have to play your army to its strengths in 8th edition (e.g. running characters with auras behind a few units. Or, Wave Serpent spam ).

Yes the next game I play I will post my list and board setup (picture). The Eldar list I ran was garbage... I may have mentioned it.. I told him I wante to play test some Harlequins for a commission job im doing... well my buddy took advantage knowing I cant transport them, as I dont have a harlequin vehicle, took advantage.

Well, maybe if you had taught me MtG then I wouldn't hate it so much.
Very cool reply.
I imagine you are a great person to hang out with.

If your friend is taking advantage of your lack of transports it still seems that he is in need of an attitude correction.
If my friend had an army at some disadvantage the last thing I would want to do is punish him for it...
So my advice remains unchanged regardless.

Oh MtG is a great time! i don't play at stores though just with family. We all home brew decks, lots of tribal stuff. We would have complete tribal games like, vampires, soldiers, treefolk (me), goblins, etc...

I started making meta decks to get into the LGS competitive scene but there were basically no LGS's in my area that ran modern. I started bringing those decks... like Tron to the table with my family... and it didnt work out well.... for them... so I stopped.

I think its just a phase for him right now. I think he think he will pick up the wins while he can, because he knows that if I keep getting my butt kicked... I will make a rough list and try to run him over lol.

Something similar happened in 7th edition... I was making "fun" lists especially with 1k Sons. My plan wasn't on winning just having fun with psychic powers etc... once I got Magnus he started playing much harder and took the games more seriously.. even though I wouldn't care. He started getting a bit cocky with his lists... so i brought out Eldar... ya he got wrecked.

I played him one game with 7th edition Eldar..... and he acts like we played 10 and I would crush him everytime... I think that's where all this is coming from lol.

To me it sounds like you're not using enough terrain or you're not taking advantage of terrain to ensure you have partial or full coverage to avoid first turn barrages...

 3orangewhips wrote:
GK first strike is brutal. I play someone who runs 2-3 stormravens, Draigo, the new character with the hammer, a librarian and 5-6 assassins. Draigo gets buffed and is in your face turn 1 or 2 (2++ save if power goes off), plus the assassins are all over you.

You're getting smitted (smitten?) by 3-4 psychers, plus all the other shenanigans. The list is VERY hard to beat. You can't shoot the characters as he puts one of those Cullexus (sp) assassins out front, so it's 6+ to hit no matter what.

Even though you can usually kill the assassins, some of them explode like a vehicle and do more damage.

It's a very competitive list.

EDIT: I meant to add that with ravens and deep strike, LOS isn't too much of a help. I tend to cluster my units around Bobby G or whoever is giving rerolls.

I don't think the above list has many space marine counters, aside from scout spam to deny the DS. Doesn't do crap to the ravens. And we use lots of LOS blocking terrain.