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

You go to a magic forum such as mtgthesource.com or starcitygames.com and there is a forum with Decks to Beat with a thread devoted to each of the current good decks in the format that have won big tournaments with deck lists and primers and match up analysis and another devoted to established decks which haven't won big tourneys but a lot of people play where people report their tourneys and talk about changes and personal touches to the decks. The sites also list the top 8 winners from recent large tournaments.

Just wondering why they don't have such a thing for Warhammer are warhammer players more casual and less competitive?

I think the big difference between magic players and 40k players (and speaking as both) is the number of games that can feasibly be played in a given span of time.

Magic players over the course of just a few hours can play more games than your average 40k player can manage over the course of a week, and they get major updates to the entire metagame every few months. Sets cycle in and out of type 2 with a window that is just long enough to keep things fresh and interesting.

The fact of the matter is that, even with infinite cash and labor resources, 40k players will never be able to hammer out and fine tune our army lists to that kind of a degree, even on the tourney circuit.

In addition, many of the good MtG decks tend to play themselves. I'm not saying there aren't better and worse players, and some decks require a bit of skill, but as often as not, you're playing what you draw and deciding to attack or not.

You're also looking at a metagame where, while it shifts every few months, there are generally no more than four archetypes viable at a time, and tweaks involve just a few cards.

While lists are important in 40k, there are far more other variables involved in gameplay, so the list becomes less important than the deck is in Magic.

There are also more variables to consider in the metagame. In MtG, people play decks with no particular attachment. In Wargaming, you'll encounter the players who picked armies for looks, or fluff. The idea of archetypes isn't as established, and with 10+ armies to pick from, may never be.

Dronze Makes some excellent points.

Back when I played Magic, cost of some must have cards was also an issue. I remember giving my Magic for warhammer probally in 1997-1998. Something like that.

There are also so many addictional variables in a 40k army, the way figures are moved, the variable terrain. I think it is a more variable game, at least to me.

Hmm, now I am thinking of modeling a Gauntlet of Might on of my my Crimson Fists, thanks...

CF Scout wrote:Dronze Makes some excellent points.

Back when I played Magic, cost of some must have cards was also an issue. I remember giving my Magic for warhammer probally in 1997-1998. Something like that.

There are also so many addictional variables in a 40k army, the way figures are moved, the variable terrain. I think it is a more variable game, at least to me.

Hmm, now I am thinking of modeling a Gauntlet of Might on of my my Crimson Fists, thanks...

Ooooh, I'm going to make a Chaos Orb. Now with real card destruction. Let's see how that Reaver stands up to this giant rock. (Of course, that would require me lifting a giant rock, which would probably throw my back out (at best) so I probably won't go through with it, but I see no problem with this.)

On topic, I've run into the same problem. I'd like to look at some 'OMG Freaking Awesome' lists and the basic strategies that go into them (since I have more reading time than playing time) but, eh, so be it. There are plenty of people that consistently win with underpowered lists so it's probably not such a big deal. Either that or they're all dirty liars.

MTG also uses a real tournament system which can accurately determine winners

3 games for RTTs is mostly about who got really lucky one game when determining overall winner

Even 5 games isnt enough.. CCG tournaments usually have 7 prelim rounds, then cut and do elimination rounds which are 2 out of 3.. With that many games you eliminate one game of getting lucky

If in 40k you could play lots of games then you'd see more strategizing.. also the players in CCGs are more serious and dont care about painting or fluff

Is there fluff in Magic other than the "You are two wizards with 60+ spells?"

Magic has books and stuff, along with flavor text.

Most players ignore it completely.

Yeah I read some of the books a while back and they were pretty weak as a whole. The setting just doesn't feel very unique or different from any other fantasy stuff.

I just started playing Magic myself not too long ago due to a few of my friends getting me into it. I'm, subsequently trying to get them into Warhammer. It's been a lot harder as Magic games are so quick and the rules incredibly quick and easy to pick up. 40k Takes a little time and explanation, along with actually getting together armies and the like. Luckily, I have some spare armies, but it's always more fun when you use your own of any kind of thing such as that.

Kirasu wrote:also the players in CCGs are more serious and dont care about painting or fluff

All my magic cards are painted with at least 3 colors and based, thank you very much!

Its not comparable because the way the structure of Grand Tournaments are set up they take account of composition, sportsmanship, and skill at modeling/ painting.


You can win all of your games at a GT with blow outs and one person with a very well painted themed army can win first because he won 3 games barely but has a better army , was nicer.


GT are not a real serious indication of what is the best armies.


Magic doesnt have anything like that at all period. Its also not indicative of skill either, I can give a new player a Nob Army if he doesnt know tactics and how to actually play the game it doesnt mean dick.

I agree that there is not a large enough number of games played to accurately determine the best army list.

OTOH, Magic allows for collusion via concession and prize splits, so there's stuff going on there, too...

You can't compare MtG with 40k...it's totally different. One is with models, painted by yourself and it's cinematic and stuff...and MtG is a cardgame...a funny one, though! GO LLANOVAR ELVES!!!

GMMStudios wrote:Is there fluff in Magic other than the "You are two wizards with 60+ spells?"

Expansions tend to have a theme, and some sort of backstory, complete with factions and these are reflected with cards and their fluff texts etc. But it is more like flavouring, compared to more extensive background of 40k or FB. Some people make themed decks for fun, but they are totally uncompetive. A "fluffy" MtG deck restricts itself so much that it doesn't have any chance against Tourney deck.

I'm waiting for a time when there are national rankings for 40K and WHFB. I think it'd be cool to stagger into a tournament and be able to say, "I'm the 100,463rd seed."

I have no idea how such a feat could be done though.

Magic apparently has some sort of organized tournament circuit...but do players establish rank that carries over throughout a "season?" I know Wizkidz did something of the sort with their various Clix games.

Warhammer has the Indy GT. Unfortunately the website is horrid. Also, most GT's have a website but a lot of them don't post all that much info about results. I was looking at one the other day that didn't even list the armies of the winners, just their name and overall points.

I'm the only one who seems to care about competitive Yu-Gi-Oh!, but it's just as well documented. Up until the UDE/Konami distribution fiasco, we had players ranked by state and country as well. Card games in general don't guilt trip you about fluff so you'll see a lot more of the same thing happening than in a tabletop game. I imagine if everyone magnetized everything things might be slightly more similar, though still different enough.

Well, the US has had a tournament circuit for a couple years now. I know who the guys at the top are, see them at a tournament, mos def find what they are playing, probably see em in round 3.