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.

This thread is probably going to get either ignored or locked, but oh well. You get to enjoy my semi-drunken posting state, Dakkadakka.

Now, I know I'm new here, and to 40k in general, but man, when I found out about this game I was SO excited. It was so cool, and everything was neat and I got to make my own army with my own models and squeeeee!

...And then I came here. And every thread is "X is too cost-inefficient" or "Y is the best thing ever, always take 3!" and it's starting to feel like Magic the Gathering all over again.

Yes, I know this hobby is expensive, and it makes sense to want to win, but...Does anyone even consider it a hobby? I see it, occasionally, when someone defends that they want to take a Carnifex, or a Cannoness, or a...I don't know, Thunderfire Cannon, "Cudos to you for playing with what you like!" And that just boggles me. Shouldn't we all be playing with what we like? Isn't that why we started playing?

I don't understand why people get into this game and only focus on the most competitive and points efficient things. No offense meant, but this seems like a really...odd choice, to say the least, if you're going for tournaments. MtG is a competitive game, in my opinion, and tends to be balanced around it. I'm sure there's other tabletop games more competitive and well balanced than 40k. Ultimately, no matter how good your "odds" are, or how awesome and meticulously crafted your list is, it all comes down to the roll of the dice. It's entirely possible (though not probable) to roll 6 1's on your terminator armor saves; and that's before we get into things like external and internal balance. (Hello Helldrakes vs the Rest of the CSM codex, Hello 5th Edition GKs vs everything else.)

I don't know, I'm kind of just rambling, but all the time I just constantly see people treating Warhammer as some super-duper serious, ultracompetitive tourney-machine game, with netlists and "Well X did Y and Z tournament!" and it starts to feel like the change of "Beer and Pretzels with friends" to "ZOMG MUST OPTIMIZE EVERYTHING!!!1!"

Let me clarify that I don't necessarily think that people who enjoy making the most powerful lists are in the wrong; if that's your thing, that's your thing, but I really find it kind of silly to see so many threads about it, and so many that include lines like "Man, I'd love to take X, but it's just so cost-inefficient!"

tl;dr I'm kind of tanked and this forum is really really serious about tournament play even if they don't work in a tournament environment. I don't want this game to end up being Magic 2.0 for me. :C

40k is what you make of it, much like anything else. I have guys I can go to when I want a hard core game for bragging rights. I have guys I can go to when I want a relaxed game where we throw some dice around and laugh at my hive tyrant that got it's butt handed to it in CC by a group of rangers. Find the people and sites that support your style of play and ignore the rest.

No one is making you stay. You can do what ever you want.

The reason there are so many threads about winning tactics, is not because everyone wants to win, but because the people who arent fussed dont write tactics threads! And if you put a list up to critique its going to be for competative reasons: why would you ask people how to improve if it already has everything you want.

If you want to stay out of that side of 40k the answer is simple, stay in the painting or general discussion threads.

Certainly there are plenty of people who want to feel like they're good at something and successful in life, and choose to use 40k as a means to achieve this. Even if they need to pass off luck as skill. Any activity, though, is going to see this effect. As you mention, there are people out there who treat MTG and 40k in very similar ways, and both games sort of lend themselves to be taken seriously in the same kinds of ways.

While I agree that trying to win the most games on the easiest difficulty level possible with the best lists is silly, that doesn't mean that thinking about the various things isn't interesting in and of itself, though. It's sort of like computer programming or... well... any form of engineering, really. Taking in a bunch of data and arranging things to your particular purpose is interesting, whether it's building bridges, or arranging flowers, or setting up a 40k list.

And the distinction between the two is what I'd focus on for the moment. The difference between those who take 40k seriously as an aesthetic endeavor, and those who take 40k seriously as a way to validate their worthiness as a human being by being able to win at something.

If the latter come across as pushy or whiny or overbearing (which they will), then you're best off just ignoring them. There's a magic little button that you can push at the bottom of anyone's post that makes it so that you don't have to suffer through their pointless bile, if you can't ignore them on your own. Either way, once you're able to listen past the screaming noise, there are other sounds to be heard. Sounds of people who like the game, and like to have fun with it.

The internet, though, is like the world's largest street corner - all the proselytizing and converting types get to shout their particular worldview, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people aren't just regular folks passing by the corner, going about their business.

If you play with powerplayers, the hobby and fun value WILL deteriorate. I used to play against a guy or two who were similar types, and gee, did they ruin the depth right off the table.
All I heard from their mouth how something wasn't worth taking to the table just because it was "sub-optimal", or how "nobody uses them". They became more like cuss words to me, as I wanted to play more fluffy and fun games - that I actually got from time to time.

As Maelstrom808 mentioned, there are the two major leagues where you need to identify and get into, according to your preference:

1) Powergamers, numbercrunchers, munchkins - the guys whose only acceptable outcome in the table is not just victory - but overwhelming victory. Forget the laughter in this group.

2) Fluff-gamers/casuals. These people care more of the experience of play and enjoyment instead of juggling with numbers. Pretty self-explanatory.

I personally am trying to balance between both, with a heavier emphasis for fun, for above all - as any of us - I desire to squeeze at least a droplet of fun from each match. That's why they're played, eh? Counting out the tournaments, of course - that's a different field.

It is a cross between the two, but as much as I do agree that the game went away from the Beer and Pretzel days of getting together with friends, throw dice get a little lit and have some good times. Once tournaments were introduced then the game becomes competitive.

You brought up Magic the Gathering being the worlds largest competitive card game. I remember competing in tournaments of 200+ people in both MtG and the Star Wars games. Our line of information was a lot weaker in the beginning because the internet wasn't used as much but now everyone has access to its information.

Like most players, especially here, we are competitive but enjoy the casual games. I get hammered with my buddy while we play games using tactics and army list that make no sense but it is fun; come tournament day we have our well thought out, well designed list that are to break our opponents back.

Regardless what system of game you go too in the miniature world they are competitive, but you have to decide how competitive you want this to be. I am a hobbyist who happens to play a game, where others are players who happen to do a hobby.

Don't get to discourage, make the best of it and if you are in it for the hobby you have the moral victory that your stuff is painted and looks awesome when you go against your 3rd plastic colored army.

I enjoy playing a game when I can but I don't try to min/max my army, because I like to try different things. I do avoid the many nearly useless units in my tyranid codex however, even when I own those pyrovores and ripper swarms . But one of the reasons I play is I like to paint and make terrain, so I spend a lot more time doing that then actually playing. As a bit of a collector I do like to take out my painted units ever now and again and look at them to see what I can do better. I look at my old 2nd edition genestealers and shudder, promising myself to strip them down and redo them someday.

Read tactical/army listing threads as ideas, not holy script, you will enjoy the game a lot more. But I definitely understand the MTG reference. My favorite thing about MTG in recent years, and what got me playing again, was Commander. 100 card deck and no dupes except for basic lands? Yes thank you! Suddenly the game was fun again instead of turn 5 or 6 it being all but over, if not over already. Might be worth talking with your local players and try to do something similar. Make a game where you cannot have any special characters, no more then one of any unit, etc to change up how the game is played.

Rumbleguts wrote:
I enjoy playing a game when I can but I don't try to min/max my army, because I like to try different things. I do avoid the many nearly useless units in my tyranid codex however, even when I own those pyrovores and ripper swarms . But one of the reasons I play is I like to paint and make terrain, so I spend a lot more time doing that then actually playing. As a bit of a collector I do like to take out my painted units ever now and again and look at them to see what I can do better. I look at my old 2nd edition genestealers and shudder, promising myself to strip them down and redo them someday.

Read tactical/army listing threads as ideas, not holy script, you will enjoy the game a lot more. But I definitely understand the MTG reference. My favorite thing about MTG in recent years, and what got me playing again, was Commander. 100 card deck and no dupes except for basic lands? Yes thank you! Suddenly the game was fun again instead of turn 5 or 6 it being all but over, if not over already. Might be worth talking with your local players and try to do something similar. Make a game where you cannot have any special characters, no more then one of any unit, etc to change up how the game is played.

Gosh that'd be fun, but I don't think I'd ever get to do it. A lot of people at my LGS seem to be kind of...Rigid in their manner of thinking. They go by the book at all times, I don't think I've ever seen a forgeworld model or even a house rule of any sort in the month that I've been there.

You guys shouldn't mind me too much. I was out most of the night with friends and now I'm just kind of derping along.

If I rememeber I made this thread in the morning it'll be amazing.

It may seem like the majority of the threads are all about "what's the next best thing" but that is not necessarily true. You really just have to know where to look. If you just log in to dakka and look at the most recently updated thread, it may be that it happens to be "HOW do I make my Eldar beat everyone ever!?!!". It could also be any of the interesting general discussion fluff questions or someone showcasing their beautiful army that they would never play on the table because it's painted to well. If you want less competitive threads and information, just look in the right places.

Congratulations, you've discovered gaming on the internet. Any game that gets enough popularity to have any meaningful discussion will inevitably be optimized and people will quickly figure out the best lists and strategies. And discussion will inevitably focus on how to win because it's the only thing you CAN discuss. If you say "x is good at winning" we can look at the results, judge whether it is or not, and come to a conclusion. If you say "I have fun with x" there's nothing more to say. I can't dispute the fact that you have fun with x, and you can't dispute the fact that I'd rather have fun with y. All we can do is just list what we consider fun and then move on to something else.

I don't know why I bother to post to these threads but here it goes.

First you have to understand an important point which many many people on the internet and in life do not grasp. The world is not black and white. There is a broad spectrum of grey between things. Therefore WAAC is not equal to competitive. Some people like to play a challenging game against a good list and pull out a win. Alternatively not all fluff players will make a mary sue SM chapter and refuse to play a game until you read their 20 page dissertation on why their chapter of TAC marines without melta can punch landraiders through the wall. I have in my time in this hobby (3rd ed not that it matters) seen as many WAAC players as I have "snow flakes". Both players are annoying and require different mind sets to play, if you are not having fun then get a new player to play with. Additionally there is the background, general discussion, batreps, and proposed rules categories which have little to do with competitive play. Keep in mind though that while this forum tends to be more positive than some the internet tends to have extreme personalities on it and for some reason anti-GW is the "cool", "hipster", and "anti-establishment" thing in this community. This means that slightly over costed becomes trashy and not worth buying and GW is out to kill your puppy.

Having fun and being fluffy or competitive are not actually linked across all humans. Some people like the fluff more than being competitive and vice versa. I personally go back and forth between the two. Find where you like to be and enjoy yourself. Also take anything you here with a grain of salt and realize that the best advice is in the batreps section of the forum not the list building or tactics, at least there you might learn something and see a nice paint job.

I really am unable to take 40k seriously.
And when I see the prices I know GW plc are joking....

 ansacs wrote:
and for some reason anti-GW is the "cool", "hipster", and "anti-establishment" thing in this community.

Probably because GW acts like the wargaming hobby is just a competition to see how incompetently you can run a company and still keep your job. Don't confuse legitimate criticism of the many things GW does wrong with just trying to be cool.

This means that slightly over costed becomes trashy and not worth buying and GW is out to kill your puppy.

This has nothing to do with GW, similar things happen in ANY game that gets popular enough to be properly analyzed and understood. Almost always there is a small subset of viable options if you're playing competitively, and anything else will be strongly criticized because taking it means a lower chance of winning. 40k just makes this worse because GW doesn't playtest professionally and frequently prints blatantly overpowered units/upgrades/etc. So there's often a very sharp drop in power level between the top-tier units/lists and the rest of the codex. For example, a Valkyrie is so clearly worse than a Vendetta that it's safe to dismiss the Valkyrie as unplayable garbage 99% of the time.

1. Dakka is a board with a large competitive crowd, compared to other forums.

2. Tactics can be fun. From time to time I come together with my friends and after a game we see what tactical mistakes we made, and where we could make our lists stronger. It's the same as with painting. Sure you can just paint your figures somehow, but most people will try to get better at it after a time.

3. Make your own fun. Make up some scenario which focusses more on the game or mixes up the usual power relations (say a game without any troops, or only using fast atacks). Suggest it to the people in your shop, community, whatever. ???. Profit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Probably because GW acts like the wargaming hobby is just a competition to see how incompetently you can run a company and still keep your job. Don't confuse legitimate criticism of the many things GW does wrong with just trying to be cool.

Some of criticism is not legitimate though. Have you heard some of the criticism on this site? There are things like why doesn't my dex get everything every other dex get? and Flyers are OP so I can't win unless I take 9 of them!!!

Be honest here. Some of the criticism you have responded to is silly if not outright ridiculous.

 Peregrine wrote:

This has nothing to do with GW, similar things happen in ANY game that gets popular enough to be properly analyzed and understood. Almost always there is a small subset of viable options if you're playing competitively, and anything else will be strongly criticized because taking it means a lower chance of winning. 40k just makes this worse because GW doesn't playtest professionally and frequently prints blatantly overpowered units/upgrades/etc. So there's often a very sharp drop in power level between the top-tier units/lists and the rest of the codex. For example, a Valkyrie is so clearly worse than a Vendetta that it's safe to dismiss the Valkyrie as unplayable garbage 99% of the time.

I agree it has nothing to do with GW. It is a melodramatic way to gain more attention by one upping an opinion. There are a large number of things people declare are trash and yet are integral parts of tournament winning lists. They call them trash instead of the more accurate they are good for X which I do not believe to be worth the cost in Y list. Or more often they are just a bit overcosted. This is very different than trash. Your example is a good one for this as the vendetta is better in an unnamed list and meta but if you spammed sabre platforms and wanted some antihorde the valk could have its place. Alternatively your meta could be nothing but hordes of GEQ.

A lot of the 40K background is dark and grim. I find a lot of it too serious, that's why I play Orks
Orks can be as serious or as silly as you make them. But then so can most armies with a little effort, look for the pink Necrons or Hello Kitty Space Marines.

As for this being a hobby. I'm a gamer, board games and RPGs. 40K is just a part of my gaming hobby, and as hobbies go 40K is a relatively cheap one.

While I agree that trying to win the most games on the easiest difficulty level possible with the best lists is silly, that doesn't mean that thinking about the various things isn't interesting in and of itself, though.

If the world worked like that Bolt should be starting half a meter behind everyone else , because his superior body and training gives him too much of an edge against others . The same should happen to all long distance runners from etiopia and kenia , those should be runing with extra weight added.

 ansacs wrote:
I don't know why I bother to post to these threads but here it goes.

First you have to understand an important point which many many people on the internet and in life do not grasp. The world is not black and white. There is a broad spectrum of grey between things. Therefore WAAC is not equal to competitive. Some people like to play a challenging game against a good list and pull out a win. Alternatively not all fluff players will make a mary sue SM chapter and refuse to play a game until you read their 20 page dissertation on why their chapter of TAC marines without melta can punch landraiders through the wall. I have in my time in this hobby (3rd ed not that it matters) seen as many WAAC players as I have "snow flakes". Both players are annoying and require different mind sets to play, if you are not having fun then get a new player to play with. Additionally there is the background, general discussion, batreps, and proposed rules categories which have little to do with competitive play. Keep in mind though that while this forum tends to be more positive than some the internet tends to have extreme personalities on it and for some reason anti-GW is the "cool", "hipster", and "anti-establishment" thing in this community. This means that slightly over costed becomes trashy and not worth buying and GW is out to kill your puppy.

Having fun and being fluffy or competitive are not actually linked across all humans. Some people like the fluff more than being competitive and vice versa. I personally go back and forth between the two. Find where you like to be and enjoy yourself. Also take anything you here with a grain of salt and realize that the best advice is in the batreps section of the forum not the list building or tactics, at least there you might learn something and see a nice paint job.

Slightly overcosted?Its marketed for 12 and up and you think its slightly overcosted?(sorry made a mistake never mind)

Eissel wrote:
This thread is probably going to get either ignored or locked, but oh well. You get to enjoy my semi-drunken posting state, Dakkadakka.

It seems the vast majority of players I meet IRL are obsessed with winning and playing competitively. So if I want any games at all generally I'll have to run my own competitive list with nothing but optimal units etc etc or get crushed. And no matter how cool your list is, watching it get crushed every game is no fun.

Sadly this 'competitive' mindset seems to spill over into every other fething wargame as well. Where the feth are the campaigns and gak that got me into this? All I see is tournaments, and this game, with its laughable balance and incredible first turn advantage, is a joke to play that way.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Eissel wrote:
This thread is probably going to get either ignored or locked, but oh well. You get to enjoy my semi-drunken posting state, Dakkadakka.

It seems the vast majority of players I meet IRL are obsessed with winning and playing competitively. So if I want any games at all generally I'll have to run my own competitive list with nothing but optimal units etc etc or get crushed. And no matter how cool your list is, watching it get crushed every game is no fun.

Sadly this 'competitive' mindset seems to spill over into every other fething wargame as well. Where the feth are the campaigns and gak that got me into this? All I see is tournaments, and this game, with its laughable balance and incredible first turn advantage, is a joke to play that way.

Bring a FW campaign book and show the people the pretty pictures. This seems to work well and people will end up doing 2 things. They buy FW models and improve their painting/modelling skills and they want to play some of the campaigns as those are really cool. If this doesn't happen try playing some beerhammer.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Eissel wrote:
This thread is probably going to get either ignored or locked, but oh well. You get to enjoy my semi-drunken posting state, Dakkadakka.

It seems the vast majority of players I meet IRL are obsessed with winning and playing competitively. So if I want any games at all generally I'll have to run my own competitive list with nothing but optimal units etc etc or get crushed. And no matter how cool your list is, watching it get crushed every game is no fun.

Sadly this 'competitive' mindset seems to spill over into every other fething wargame as well. Where the feth are the campaigns and gak that got me into this? All I see is tournaments, and this game, with its laughable balance and incredible first turn advantage, is a joke to play that way.

All of which is an opinion, now if you want campaigns go out and start running some...honestly tournaments are very easy to run, and involve large numbers of players. Running a campaign is very labor intensive and if all I want to do is play a bunch of games tournaments provide that fix for me.

I've tried, but few people are interested.

40k has terrible balance in pretty much every regard, and going first in this game is an enormous advantage. Thats not opinion, thats fact.

OP, if you want to see how deep this rabbit hole goes, go check out "You make da call". You'll never look at this hobby the same way again

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've tried, but few people are interested.

40k has terrible balance in pretty much every regard, and going first in this game is an enormous advantage. Thats not opinion, thats fact.

If this is true, then why do people who win tournaments frequently choose to go second? Some armies builds prefer to go first more than others under the right circumstances (i.e., scenarios), but to say that going first confers an absolute "enormous" advantage demonstrates a very poor understanding of the game, which is probably why you have the impression of competitive play that you do.

 Dakkamite wrote:

It seems the vast majority of players I meet IRL are obsessed with winning and playing competitively. So if I want any games at all generally I'll have to run my own competitive list with nothing but optimal units etc etc or get crushed. And no matter how cool your list is, watching it get crushed every game is no fun.

Shame that your local community is like that. I guess I should feel lucky that players at my club play 40K just to have fun socialising and don't take things too seriously.

40k is only like you described if you are into the competative scene. If I want to have fluff related or just pure fun battles then play with a group of like minded people. I play comp and for fun. Nice to have a balance.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've tried, but few people are interested.
40k has terrible balance in pretty much every regard, and going first in this game is an enormous advantage. Thats not opinion, thats fact.

I don't think "going first" is the real problem.
It's mostly about the spamming of AP-weapons that make the first turn so terrible.
If I spend 40 points on a model with a 2+ save, I want a guarantee that the unit will survive the first turn!

I think this could all be fixed by changing the way that AP works.
AP2 should be turned into "AP3: Lowers the armour save by 3" or something.
That way the opponent can have his first turn, but my expensive models will survive his shooting.

OP, if you want to see how deep this rabbit hole goes, go check out "You make da call". You'll never look at this hobby the same way again

YMDC isn't that bad, it are mostly two users (who shall not be named right now) that are ruining any friendly talk with their behaviour.

We have two nights for 40K
Tuesday is open gaming, a night to joke around and come up with goofy ideas.
Thursday is Veterans Night. 1750 Tournament, 2 games per night, at the end of the period (not sure how long the period actually is) top 3 get prizes.

Kangodo wrote:
I think this could all be fixed by changing the way that AP works.
AP2 should be turned into "AP3: Lowers the armour save by 3" or something.
That way the opponent can have his first turn, but my expensive models will survive his shooting.

That'd be interesting. Then cover and invul saves would be modifiers to the save as well. So a terminator gets shot with an AP5 weapon gets the armor save reduced to a 4+, but then the invul brings it back down to a 2+. It's something that would really have to be reworked, but seems like it could be house ruled to some degree.

I'm probably one of guys but I've never understood the point of using units that are bad to run a fluffy or fun army. I started playing in mid-late 5th ed with Tau so bringing anything besides the optimal units was the equivalent of forfeiting, so maybe it just ingrained me with an odd bias. I understand the desire to run odd units like having CSM and wanting to run Possessed or Warp Talons, and in a cut throat game they are a hinderance because of their inefficiency. Usually that's cleared up before a game starts with asking someone to not run all the Vendettas or Heldrakes, or even no flyers at all.

To me it's odd because I've never played a game where people didn't try to be competitive. When I played M:tG it was the same thing, and deck building was just as crucial to the game as list building is to 40K. It may not be what you like fluff wise, but then again 40K has some pretty silly fluff to me and I've never cared too much about it, but it's part of the game to figure out how to make a list and run with it. For me it's probably the most fun because it's a competition with yourself and trying to fine tune something to how you'd best use it. Sure a lot of people netlist, but when I see people netlist they generally don't know how to use it well or change it to something they're more comfortable with.

Why is 40K serious? I may have an answer for it.

We are all GEEKS and NERDS. For some of us (not everyone but there is a few) have the need to be the "jocks".

Just like how some of us got picked on in high school because we were geeks and nerds, there is a few people who think they are jocks with plastic toy soldiers and dice. So they take things way to seriously over this.

Why is 40K serious? Because not everybody plays Orks.