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

I've taken a few months off from 40k, mostly because of the recent price gouging and horrible game balance. I've been playing warmachine, which is such a great game and I just started playing x-wing, which has been a whole lot of fun. Now I find myself wanting to play 40k again and finish what I had started, an Eldar alt army. I aimed small and put a lot of time into building a 750 point list and I'm happy with the results. I was pretty excited to order the models until last night. For the fun of it I looked up tournament winning lists for 2015. It was not surprising to see Eldar topping the charts, but what turned me off was what these lists included. Many of them include a couple of handfulls of scatterbikes, no big deal there, and what do you for the rest of the list in an 1850 point army? You probably already know, wraithknights. Again no surprise to see one or two but I was not ready to see four or five. That is just ridiculous. I understand that it's a tournament and you take what's best in order to win, but that says everything about the state of the game.

Now I find myself so disgusted in 40k again I don't even want to finish off my 750 point list. It's sad that GW has let it get this bad. Each army should have a variety of units that make them unique and have varying strengths and weaknesses. That's why i've turned in favor of warmachine. Yes warmachine has armies that are considered more powerful than some of the others, but the gap is so much smaller. Even the so called weaker factions can put up a respectable fight.

Anyway, I'm not happy. I want to like 40k. I want to collect, build, paint, and all that fun stuff, but I've hit a new low in my enjoyment of the game.

Do people only bring top-tier tournament winning lists to games where you play? It's been my experience that the top-table tournament environment has little to nothing to do with most local environments.

I've never seen more than three units of Eldar bikes on the table, and never more than two Wraithknights.

If you wanted to get into community football, would you look up Tony Romo's stats, and then decide not to play because you can't compete with that? Most people aren't going to be playing against Tony Romo, they're going to play against Tom the Refridgerator Salesman with his trick knee and his ulcer.

I wouldn't sweat it too profusely. (Unless, for some reason, you live in a commune with only hyper-competitive players who really do have both the money and inclination to only play top-top-table tournament lists all the time. In which case, you probably live in a region that is fairly 40k friendly, so maybe look at commuting a little ways away to get your games in.)

 Caveman wrote:

Anyway, I'm not happy. I want to like 40k. I want to collect, build, paint, and all that fun stuff, but I've hit a new low in my enjoyment of the game.

You've taken the words right out of my mouth, good sir. I know where you're coming from. In fact, I made a thread a little while ago with wallas of text about this game. But I agree with you. This is hardly a game anymore, rather it's "models with rules". That's all GW wants it to be, anyway. They're not a "gaming" company, they're a miniatures company. And while they're miniatures are great, most of us buy it for the gaming aspect, which they have yet to grasp. So, I'm in the same boat as you. I've recently taken a hiatus from 40k (2 and a half weeks sober, yeah!), and I got into X-wing about 6 months ago. I've been thoroughly enjoying X-wing, as I'm a huge Star Wars nerd, but the game itself just functions better (or at all, really).

Just know that you are not alone. In fact, I wanted to start Eldar and waited for their new codex to drop, and decided that A. I would feel dirty just touching that codex, and B. I'm not supporting that release by buying models. So yeah....

40k has always been easy to break. It might be easier these days, but there has always been a disconnect between the fun and fluffy lists and the top competitive ones. The secret to enjoying 40k is to find a like-minded group of people and play at the same level.

Well, it really depends on what you are looking for in a game.
40k seems to take pride in not being balanced, heck, it is a marketing strategy.
As best I can tell from your post (may I paraphrase?): "I am disgusted with 40k because the rules allow a spammed force to win."
The game is not geared toward competitive play, more an RPG that happens to be a tabletop game.
Hence the emphasis of "forge the narrative".
I play scenarios with my friends and play the other games you mentioned to scratch that competitive itch.
If you still feel obligated to play 40k just find casual play and it will work out, it will only irritate playing those who think it is a game for generals with a cunning plan.

You can't judge 40k by what some people take in a top tournament list. Hyper competitive environments always skew the view, regardless of the game. People min max and break things.

Unless your goal with this small project is to take it to top tables at large tournaments, what those tables have should matter very little. Your local meta should be what you are looking at.

This isn't to say that 40k is balanced, but what I am saying is that you shouldn't let some big tourney results get in the way of what you want to do and your fun.

I know I tried warmahordes a while back and my local met was a copy paste of hyper competitive cheese. I tried for almost a year, but it was brutal, so I stopped because I wasn't having fun. My 40k local meta, even in tournaments, isn't nearly as bad. Ymmv of course. Just an example of local vs big tourney meta.

It used to be a lot more balanced, or at least a lot less unbalanced. That was back in the 5th edition days, before allies, formations, Unbound and so on.

 pwntallica wrote:
You can't judge 40k by what some people take in a top tournament list. Hyper competitive environments always skew the view, regardless of the game. People min max and break things.

Not being a competitive person myself, I actually manned up and went to a locally help tournament for X-wing. In that game you can't min/max. The competitive scene was just fine tuned lists of "casual" ships.

Says a lot about the game, if you ask me.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:
You can't judge 40k by what some people take in a top tournament list. Hyper competitive environments always skew the view, regardless of the game. People min max and break things.

Not being a competitive person myself, I actually manned up and went to a locally help tournament for X-wing. In that game you can't min/max. The competitive scene was just fine tuned lists of "casual" ships.

Says a lot about the game, if you ask me.

It's also smaller scale though. Im not as familliar with x-wing other than a few demo games i saw. There were a lot less modes and variety in those games. Im a huge star wars nerd, but I could tell that game wasnt for me.

Even though warmahordes is smaller scale than 40k, it can very much be min maxed. It isn't a problem unique to 40k was the point I was trying to make.

The rules for 40k have a lot of room for improvement. But it is much more of an up hill battle due to the variety of armies and units available to them.

The point I was making in my first post was that your local players should matter more than what people are running at large tournaments, unless you plan on going to said tournaments, and really want to make it to a top table.

 pwntallica wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:
You can't judge 40k by what some people take in a top tournament list. Hyper competitive environments always skew the view, regardless of the game. People min max and break things.

Not being a competitive person myself, I actually manned up and went to a locally help tournament for X-wing. In that game you can't min/max. The competitive scene was just fine tuned lists of "casual" ships.

Says a lot about the game, if you ask me.

It's also smaller scale though. Im not as familliar with x-wing other than a few demo games i saw. There were a lot less modes and variety in those games. Im a huge star wars nerd, but I could tell that game wasnt for me.

Even though warmahordes is smaller scale than 40k, it can very much be min maxed. It isn't a problem unique to 40k was the point I was trying to make.

The rules for 40k have a lot of room for improvement. But it is much more of an up hill battle due to the variety of armies and units available to them.

The point I was making in my first post was that your local players should matter more than what people are running at large tournaments, unless you plan on going to said tournaments, and really want to make it to a top table.

Which is understandable, I was just stating that it is possible for a game to not min/max (X-wing has a ton of different ships, and 3 different factions). I do see where you're coming from though, the local meta should be what you look at first.

However, unless some house ruling is put into effect, even a casual game with a friend can easily be a one-sided slaughter depending on the armies. That is still not fun for anyone.

There's a lot of differences between 40k and X-wing, but I think the biggest difference is that the designers of X-wing actually care about the tournament scene. To continue having great tournaments, they release new models, and when an issue comes up they try and fix it. GW does not do this, because in their minds it's a casual game. As such, the player-backed tourneys run into the problems of spam-lists and broken interactions that encourage what casual gamers would find to be un-fun experiences. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this approach, because 40k is still an awesome game that has a lot to offer that X-wing can't (greater scale, tons of factions, grander strategies of tactics when two near-equal forces engage each other, better narrative gameplay in my experience, and an deluge of options), but balanced it is not.

As stated, a snapshot of the tournament scene shouldn't discourage you from playing. Outside of tournaments, I've never seen the tourney-builds, and even at the most high-end tournament I've been to, I'd say less than 40% of the players brought the tourney-winning-builds you see online.

99% of my games are against non-tournament quality armies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It used to be a lot more balanced, or at least a lot less unbalanced. That was back in the 5th edition days, before allies, formations, Unbound and so on.

Bring back 5th edition!

5th was so awesome, at least for me. 6th was already kind of a bad, and 7th is imo unplayable for some factions and uplayable without that one and only build for other, while a few cherry picked factions play with what ever they want.

40k tournaments are one of the silliest things in existence. especially if they rig the game by trying to "balance" it by putting up restrictions that clearly flavour certain lists. I love 40k events where I can play some games vs new players I have never met. Playing highly serious competitive 40k is just plain silly when a large portion of the game is decided by what list you bring in a world with internet access and a web store where you can just order the best units. So just ignore that part of the hobby unless you like the silliness so much that you want to buy a new army every half year.

OP's sentiments mirror my own.
I'm a very casual player, but the imbalance trickled down to casual games where one guy's casual Eldar army curb stomps someone else's casual chaos army.

I stopped playing 40k about a year ago and at first I missed it. But then as I got into better games, I realized that what I didn't miss about 40k outnumbered what I did. The game has too many problems to enjoy at the moment. (aka. a very long time.) I've never been happier since I left 40k. There are so many great games out there that don't have this GW created frustration.

Tournaments like that are always the same, and always take the overpowered flavor of the month. It's been that way as long as there have been tournaments for this game. If you're looking into just getting into the hyper competitive side that's what you're gonna have to deal with, but if you're like the majority of players who just play to have fun with their friends and roll some dice, you can safely ignore it. Even tournaments I've gone to have been pretty free of that stuff, and I've just seen them as an excuse to play a bunch of games of 40k in one day.

40k is what you make of it.

 Caveman wrote:

Now I find myself so disgusted in 40k again I don't even want to finish off my 750 point list. It's sad that GW has let it get this bad. Each army should have a variety of units that make them unique and have varying strengths and weaknesses. That's why i've turned in favor of warmachine. Yes warmachine has armies that are considered more powerful than some of the others, but the gap is so much smaller. Even the so called weaker factions can put up a respectable fight.

Anyway, I'm not happy. I want to like 40k. I want to collect, build, paint, and all that fun stuff, but I've hit a new low in my enjoyment of the game.

Yeah... I wouldn't give two craps about what you see in tournaments. I play Eldar and I have a ton of fun with them. I own a Wraithknight... that has been sitting in a box unassembled for almost a year now. Currently working on painting my Warp Spiders (admittedly one of the better units in the new book, but I've always been in love with them, I used them a lot in the old book). Next on my list after that is getting my Striking Scorpions done up, and then maybe my Night Spinners and Crimson Hunter.

I own three old-style jetbikes, none with a heavy weapon... and I don't really see the need to get more.

I played a great game against my friend's Necron army a couple weeks ago. I tried bringing the Guardian Warhost for the first time (I didn't own any Vaul's Wrath Batteries before) and some Dark Reapers with the new book for the first time. We had a pretty great game. It was undecided until about turn 5, where he just got too far ahead of me when it came to objective points. One of the heroes of my game was a squad of Rangers which managed to kill his Overlord turn 4. We had lots of great back-and-forth over the course of the game.

So yeah, you might be able to do crazy broken things with Eldar (and geez with Necrons it's even easier in my opinion) but it doesn't mean you can't have great games as long as both players are coming from that perspective.

I actually DO want to use my Wraithknight at some point, but I'm strongly thinking that for our games I'll remove "Gargantuan Creature" status from it and treat it like a normal MC. We may possibly use the last-edition's rules for Eldar Distort Weapons as well. So I'm kind of disappointed that the Eldar book is a bit too strong in that regard that we have to come up with house-rules for it.

Jimsolo already nailed this thread.

If you care about hyper competitive gaming, you probably are a hyper competitive gamer, and playing hyper competitive lists shouldn't disgust you. You would view the competition as a challenge. It's not a hard challenge either, as you can buy yourself into quite an edge over the casual gamers, and then the only real games happen against people like yourself, since you steamroll everyone else.

That said, if that kind of gaming does disgust you, you shouldn't care that some people actually do enjoy it. Ignore that whole world and imagine it doesn't exist. Contrary to popular belief, most 40K gaming is done between groups of friends, and this is the type of 40K that GW has always tried to encourage. Casual games with narratives, some house rules, some deals about what kind of army lists should be played, and friendly opponents who don't really care if they win or lose as long as they had some good games. Nobody will argue seriously about rules, dice, lists or measurements.

I've played 40K on all levels, but I can't definitively say what I enjoy the most. Tournaments are a great place to see dozens or even hundreds of armies in person. There you can see that your game is truly alive. You get to meet new people and so on. The actual level of play depends on the tournament, but that really isn't the most important part. The most important part is the social aspect and fun of it all. It can also be a bit exhausting as you might play so many games over a weekend that you get a 40K hangover from rolling all those dice and making tactical game decisions. Then on the other hand I also like beer hammer with a friend, where we can play even three games in a row, just ending the game when the result is obvious and re-deploying with some different lists/armies. It's fun, but I wouldn't like to play against the same two guys forever and ever either.

What you should do is try to pick and choose the times when you want to play with some guys at your store, or your club, or at your home, and enjoy that for what it is, and then pick an event that you like and try that too. People play 40K in so many different ways. Some play every week, plus monthly tournaments, plus a couple annual mega tournaments, while some only play a few times per year but still follow the game actively. There's no right or wrong way so just pick your own.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do people only bring top-tier tournament winning lists to games where you play? It's been my experience that the top-table tournament environment has little to nothing to do with most local environments.

I've never seen more than three units of Eldar bikes on the table, and never more than two Wraithknights.

If you wanted to get into community football, would you look up Tony Romo's stats, and then decide not to play because you can't compete with that? Most people aren't going to be playing against Tony Romo, they're going to play against Tom the Refridgerator Salesman with his trick knee and his ulcer.

I wouldn't sweat it too profusely. (Unless, for some reason, you live in a commune with only hyper-competitive players who really do have both the money and inclination to only play top-top-table tournament lists all the time. In which case, you probably live in a region that is fairly 40k friendly, so maybe look at commuting a little ways away to get your games in.)

You, sir, deserve an Exalt!

The problem is, as has been mentioned, is that the line between "hyper-competitive" and "fluffy fun fluff" lists are very, very blurry, based entirely on which Codex you're building out of. If one guy likes Chaos and one guy likes Eldar, both of them could build entirely fluff-centric armies (Khornate Berserkers vs Scatbiks w/ Seers)... and our Chaos Player has elected to play on Hard Mode, simply because the basic rules of the game (and the rules of the Eldar Codex) are arranged against him.

This is not a problem that is found between, or caused by, players, this is a problem found in the design of the game. Yes, you can redesign, house-rule, rewrite, whatever until it becomes fun for both players.... but for the price you paid for those books and those models? You shouldn't have to.

Can't remember when 40k was balanced to begin with. And i'm playing since the start of 5-th which is so revered now...man, those parking lots and killpoint missions were awful great, right?

I'm not revering 5th at all. The wound allocation was dumb.

I think it's just a matter of people are tired of broken unit X so it seems better when it was broken unit Y.

I just don't play top tier armies in friendly pickup games (I won't bring it and I won't play against it... unless its a call out game or the like).

 Caveman wrote:
I've taken a few months off from 40k, mostly because of the recent price gouging and horrible game balance. I've been playing warmachine, which is such a great game and I just started playing x-wing, which has been a whole lot of fun. Now I find myself wanting to play 40k again and finish what I had started, an Eldar alt army. I aimed small and put a lot of time into building a 750 point list and I'm happy with the results. I was pretty excited to order the models until last night. For the fun of it I looked up tournament winning lists for 2015. It was not surprising to see Eldar topping the charts, but what turned me off was what these lists included. Many of them include a couple of handfulls of scatterbikes, no big deal there, and what do you for the rest of the list in an 1850 point army? You probably already know, wraithknights. Again no surprise to see one or two but I was not ready to see four or five. That is just ridiculous. I understand that it's a tournament and you take what's best in order to win, but that says everything about the state of the game.

Now I find myself so disgusted in 40k again I don't even want to finish off my 750 point list. It's sad that GW has let it get this bad. Each army should have a variety of units that make them unique and have varying strengths and weaknesses. That's why i've turned in favor of warmachine. Yes warmachine has armies that are considered more powerful than some of the others, but the gap is so much smaller. Even the so called weaker factions can put up a respectable fight.

Anyway, I'm not happy. I want to like 40k. I want to collect, build, paint, and all that fun stuff, but I've hit a new low in my enjoyment of the game.

Q1: are you planning to go to tournaments? If no, then it doesn't matter what their lists have.
Q2: if you go to a tournament, are you planning to win or just going to have fun playing against people you haven't met? Generally in my experience, roughly a third or more of the crowd at every event are these guys. They bring the lists they want, expect to lose a couple games by default but still give it the old college try, and have 3-4 good solid games against the other people like them.
Q3: if you do go to a tournament, are you going to like...some Wargamescon/NOVA size event or just a dozen or so local players in a small one day event? If the latter, it's entirely possible you might be the ONLY eldar present.

If you do want to win, try ITC events. Some houserules are in place in their format that has made for a pretty varying meta at the top tables. Namely, they only allow one superheavy lord of war in your list unless they're IK's, so you won't run into 5 wraithknights. You could run into several IK's, but several of the top table lists commonly thrash them or outscore them, so I rarely see more than a couple lists with 3, and a few with 1. I've only seen a list with multiple imperial Knights do really well once ever. (My tourney buddy runs a baronial court of 3, and he constantly gets kicked around and ends up in the bottom 40% of rankings usually.)

It's definitely no understatement to say that scatbikes are the top troop choice currently, but they aren't unbeatable. They're just really fast marines that can jink defense wise.

I did that too, trying out Warmahordes for a while.

Then I played games against a guy who could cover 2/3 of the board with impenetrable forest,

And a guy who could delete my caster from across the board for an instant win,

And a guy who could boost all his critters up to 30+ armor indefinitely,

Warmahordes contains, if anything, MORE min maxing than 40k. A casual, random "I'm picking for aesthetics" list stands less chance in WMH than 40k-the reason it's a more competitive game is that there's a higher variety of strategies to make your list busted. And, since it's cheaper to get the super lists, EVERYONE runs them.

I'll stick with the hobby where a large quantity of people have played for 20+ years and don't give a gak about tourney play. That way I can actually have a game where I just play my pretty models and I can have fun, and I don't have to hear "yeah so this model buffs that model which casts from this other model who projects a magical barrier protecting my entire army. Oh you moved 18.6 inches away from me instead of 19", which is CLEARLY my threat range, stupid scrub didn't you complete the geometry degree necessary to play a real competitive game? So yeah you lose."

the_scotsman wrote:
I did that too, trying out Warmahordes for a while.

Then I played games against a guy who could cover 2/3 of the board with impenetrable forest,

There are no impenetrable forests in Warmahordes. Pathfinder allows you to walk through it, and eyeless sight helps quite a bit. You can also drift AoE's.
I'm assuming this is bradigus in tier. He can be hard but it's not game breaking.

the_scotsman wrote:

And a guy who could delete my caster from across the board for an instant win

The furthest caster kill run I can think of runs over 20", just over. Molik karn is pretty janky, but caster kills don't happen often at top levels of play.
Usually caster kills happen from movement stuff at shorter range like side step, beat back, or a teleport. Not an across the board caster kill...and none go literally across the board.

the_scotsman wrote:

And a guy who could boost all his critters up to 30+ armor indefinitely,

This is flat out impossible. Very few creatures can even reach 30 armor (Full camp terminus on feat turn?). None can do it longer than the feat turn, and only for the caster.

the_scotsman wrote:

Warmahordes contains, if anything, MORE min maxing than 40k. A casual, random "I'm picking for aesthetics" list stands less chance in WMH than 40k-the reason it's a more competitive game is that there's a higher variety of strategies to make your list busted. And, since it's cheaper to get the super lists, EVERYONE runs them.

This is flat out not true. Take a look at the WTC, the most high profile tournament out there for the game.
Cryx is the highest with 20% of the lists (And this is before the nerf to their strongest list, B&S).
The rest of the factions are about 7-10%, with minions and CoC being a bit lower (which aren't real factions, as stated by PP).
You would NEVER see this in 40k, in any edition. Even the better balanced editions tended to have over half the tournament players using one codex.

Basically, in WMH, some units or unit combinations are subpar. In 40k, some factions are subpar.

the_scotsman wrote:

I'll stick with the hobby where a large quantity of people have played for 20+ years and don't give a gak about tourney play. That way I can actually have a game where I just play my pretty models and I can have fun, and I don't have to hear "yeah so this model buffs that model which casts from this other model who projects a magical barrier protecting my entire army. Oh you moved 18.6 inches away from me instead of 19", which is CLEARLY my threat range, stupid scrub didn't you complete the geometry degree necessary to play a real competitive game? So yeah you lose."

People who are hyper competitive exist in 40k just as easily. On these boards, we've had people say that the WS was crap last edition, and the scat bikes are fair and balanced this edition.
You can't play a game against these people, since they will spam these units considering them fine, unless you play certain SM, Eldar, or Necron lists.
In WMH any faction can go against any faction. Even at the WTC, I don't understand why certain casters were taken and why the lists look a certain way. In 40k, most of the lists can be broken down pretty simply, even by someone who doesn't play at tournaments like me.

Granted, if you don't like a complex game, WMH is rough. The units have way more abilities and more to do, and they combine in ways that can make it a challenge to play. 40k only requires a strategy in the list building phase, the table is generally tactics light. Especially after deployment.

I do sympathise with the OP

There are so many other games out there now. Many board games have srsly good gameplay, are easy to learn and plenty of fun. Some are even cooperative AND fun! heaven forbid! Board games are played a very relaxed social setting that can even include plenty of females!

The one thing 40k is clearly best is the modelling side. The figures and painting side of 40k is second to none.

Akiasura wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I did that too, trying out Warmahordes for a while.

Then I played games against a guy who could cover 2/3 of the board with impenetrable forest,

There are no impenetrable forests in Warmahordes. Pathfinder allows you to walk through it, and eyeless sight helps quite a bit. You can also drift AoE's.
I'm assuming this is bradigus in tier. He can be hard but it's not game breaking.

the_scotsman wrote:

And a guy who could delete my caster from across the board for an instant win

The furthest caster kill run I can think of runs over 20", just over. Molik karn is pretty janky, but caster kills don't happen often at top levels of play.
Usually caster kills happen from movement stuff at shorter range like side step, beat back, or a teleport. Not an across the board caster kill...and none go literally across the board.

the_scotsman wrote:

And a guy who could boost all his critters up to 30+ armor indefinitely,

This is flat out impossible. Very few creatures can even reach 30 armor (Full camp terminus on feat turn?). None can do it longer than the feat turn, and only for the caster.

the_scotsman wrote:

Warmahordes contains, if anything, MORE min maxing than 40k. A casual, random "I'm picking for aesthetics" list stands less chance in WMH than 40k-the reason it's a more competitive game is that there's a higher variety of strategies to make your list busted. And, since it's cheaper to get the super lists, EVERYONE runs them.

This is flat out not true. Take a look at the WTC, the most high profile tournament out there for the game.
Cryx is the highest with 20% of the lists (And this is before the nerf to their strongest list, B&S).
The rest of the factions are about 7-10%, with minions and CoC being a bit lower (which aren't real factions, as stated by PP).
You would NEVER see this in 40k, in any edition. Even the better balanced editions tended to have over half the tournament players using one codex.

Basically, in WMH, some units or unit combinations are subpar. In 40k, some factions are subpar.

the_scotsman wrote:

I'll stick with the hobby where a large quantity of people have played for 20+ years and don't give a gak about tourney play. That way I can actually have a game where I just play my pretty models and I can have fun, and I don't have to hear "yeah so this model buffs that model which casts from this other model who projects a magical barrier protecting my entire army. Oh you moved 18.6 inches away from me instead of 19", which is CLEARLY my threat range, stupid scrub didn't you complete the geometry degree necessary to play a real competitive game? So yeah you lose."

People who are hyper competitive exist in 40k just as easily. On these boards, we've had people say that the WS was crap last edition, and the scat bikes are fair and balanced this edition.
You can't play a game against these people, since they will spam these units considering them fine, unless you play certain SM, Eldar, or Necron lists.
In WMH any faction can go against any faction. Even at the WTC, I don't understand why certain casters were taken and why the lists look a certain way. In 40k, most of the lists can be broken down pretty simply, even by someone who doesn't play at tournaments like me.

Granted, if you don't like a complex game, WMH is rough. The units have way more abilities and more to do, and they combine in ways that can make it a challenge to play. 40k only requires a strategy in the list building phase, the table is generally tactics light. Especially after deployment.

I didn't feel like correcting his post, thanks for doing it for me.

WH40k is too imbalanced to be a fair competitive tournament game.

Some players play WH40k too much like a competitive sport which invalidates GW's disclosure of WH40k as a Beer and Pretzel Game.

Therefore GW doesn't care about the shoddy rules they write with so many loop holes and ambiguity.

I admire Dman137 for being a troll and starting flame wars on these forums. He boasts about his unbeatable Eldar list which does have several WK and scat bikers. This makes him a very competitive player and a very fluff player because Eldars are cheaters. I applaud him for getting on so many people's nerves. He is the embodiment of DakkaDakkaNaughts everywhere. How he did not get banned is beyond me and I have to respect that some where out there, he has cause some one serious anal leakage.

My recommendation to you is if you dont have an army then go straight into a cheesy net list.

If you do own an army, then sell that for beer money on ebay and build yourself the top cheese net list.

 Filch wrote:
WH40k is too imbalanced to be a fair competitive tournament game.

Some players play WH40k too much like a competitive sport which invalidates GW's disclosure of WH40k as a Beer and Pretzel Game.

Therefore GW doesn't care about the shoddy rules they write with so many loop holes and ambiguity.

I admire Dman137 for being a troll and starting flame wars on these forums. He boasts about his unbeatable Eldar list which does have several WK and scat bikers. This makes him a very competitive player and a very fluff player because Eldars are cheaters. I applaud him for getting on so many people's nerves. He is the embodiment of DakkaDakkaNaughts everywhere. How he did not get banned is beyond me and I have to respect that some where out there, he has cause some one serious anal leakage.

My recommendation to you is if you dont have an army then go straight into a cheesy net list.

If you do own an army, then sell that for beer money on ebay and build yourself the top cheese net list.

That is terrible advice.