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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
OP, play what you want, and care not for internet blubbering.

Play a model because you like it and it's cool.

Ultimately this. DakkaDakka won't come and flip your game board if you use Valkyries instead of Vendettas. It's just a better idea to use the other if being competitive is your thing.

And if Dakka did that's what restraining orders and a civil suit are for.

Seriously, play what you want. As long as you don't make an active attempt to power game it shouldn't be an issue to run the Heldrake. If it does still feel like an issue, take the Autocannon and use the Heldrake to go beat up elite troops, and tanks.

Keep up the faith. 40K is indeed it's most broken when played by people who go out of their way to break every game system they play. In fact, there's a lot of people on Dakka who only stick with 40K because they are disenfranchised with other games that don't let them be Munchkins.

They will go on about how "40K is superior to everything out there", but that's only because it lets them do what they need to do to have a game be "fun".

Nothing about these forums has negated any of the tings you and your friends have been having fun with. If you were having fun before finding these forums, that's not gonna change. If all the broken tactics talk is getting you down, stick to the Background fluff and hobby sections of the forums, as they have nothing to do with the "latest meta" in the game.

I know for me, those sections of Dakka are the exact reasons I started in 40K nearly 20 years ago, and still stick with the game now, in the days of changing rule editions and price hikes.

Believe me, the "serious" 40K players would FLIP their lids if they new what I do to the game for fun. Hell, sometimes I play with friends where we are using editions of the game that are 15 years out of date! It's all about what you need to do to have fun with your buddies.

In my experience, every Forum does that to a degree. Back in the day, I really enjoyed playing Dawn of War 1/2 Online. After a particular match where the Enemy complained that I used OP-Units, I went on a gaming Forum out of interest.

It took only about 5 minutes of research to find out, that according to most people on there, I should only build half of my unit roster, because the other half is absolutely op. The "OP-roster" and the "UP-roster" would change weekly. At first, I listened to this stuff, abandoned some tactics completely and sometimes even entire races out of fear to play weak/strong units and upset anyone. People would sometimes ignore whole statements of others, because they built "Unit X" or "support a broken system".

Eventually, I just stopped giving a gak and played how I wanted to. So what if Helldrakes are strong? As long as you dont field 5 of them and make your opponent suffer for your amusement, wheres the harm? So what if Flash Gitz suck? They look cool, so I will put them in my army.

Im annoyed by most "trends" Forums went trough recently. Especially the appearance of the whole "strawman, red hering etc."-stuff, because it sometimes makes people sound incredibly pretentious, but one thing I liked was the statement "We should agree to disagree". A lot of Forum discussions run in circles, with people getting more and more upset. While its amusing to read (to a degree, even the biggest flamewar has a pattern and once you get there it becomes boring), its also a bit sad that some people cant seem to let stuff go. I've seen a few threads on here where you have a 45% to 45% "Likers and haters", with maybe only 10% stating their opinion and leaving it at that (give or take a few quotes maybe), while the others bash each other non-stop.

As offensive as this may sound, it doesnt matter if others disagree with you in this case. Its about YOUR Fun, and the Fun of your buddies. Its not like youre forced to drop everything the moment someone says something negative on some Internet-Forum. People have opinions and while it has some bad-sides to it sometimes, its important that everyone's able to share it with each other.

The game as it exists on the forums has almost no bearing on the game I see in real life. The armies that are "broken" lose consistently in my club, and one of the "worst" armies out there is the one that I've never seen defeated.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The game as it exists on the forums has almost no bearing on the game I see in real life. The armies that are "broken" lose consistently in my club, and one of the "worst" armies out there is the one that I've never seen defeated.

True, but for every statistic out there you will see a deviation. Statistically speaking Eldar will win most games but there can be situations where they don't due to player rolling badly, poor strategic ability and, most importantly, bad list writing. Also, there are statistics that can be tilted one way or another by a group of outliers such as tournament games in Warhammer 40,000.

The game as it exists on the forums is actually well represented in real life. A group of space marines armed with grav guns moving forward on foot have a great chance of being destroyed and many players here know this. A Vendetta will destroy other aircraft better than the equivalent Dark Angel craft and is generally a better choice. What the tactics forum is about is not about saying "Oh, you can't win because you're IG v Tau" it's about optimizing your chances of success. I think what you think of as "The game as it exists on the forum" is the attitude that an army will win just because of what army it is which not only isn't true in real life but I don't think many people in Dakka will agree to this.

This is actually a problem I find with some users on DakkaDakka more specifically the "Casual Crusaders". They think that they everyone is proclaiming that there is only one way to play and that you can't take a Hellhound because it's bad. My contention with this attitude is that it's assuming that most people that going on the Tactics forum have their mentality when it comes to gaming and that they will and should agree with their choices despite it being a place to get advice on your lists and gameplay. My other contention is that is seems to imply that just because, say Peregrine, told you that using a Hellhound is bad means that you can't use it. Of course you can use it. I can see why this would be an issue since you may be searching for advice on proper Hellhound use and people just telling you not to use it is against your goals but you don't have to take their advice.

So, like I said earlier, use your army lists as you please but I don't believe your innocence will be lost here. It also implies that people who don't know what is optimal are somehow purer for it rather than those who do. I will not comment on that since I don't think it was intentional.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because that's a really low standard. You might have fun playing 40k despite its bad rules, but you'd probably have more fun if the rules were better.

A person has fun playing it? Then it has succeeded as a game, which demonstrates that it is, to some degree, good. Just because something can be improved doesn't invalidate the fun one has in playing it.

A more accurate criticism would be that 40K has issues with balance or its mechanics. To just say that it is bad altogether is a rather broad statement.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Hello, people.

Before I came to Dakkadakka, I and my little gaming group of 6-7 friends were playing together, painting, converting, making armies out of the models that we liked, and played. We gave little thought to questioning the rules or even if they were balanced or not. This all changed when we came here. I really like this forum but I can't look at 40K the same way again. For example, I had planned on adding a Heldrake to my army as I liked the model. Now, I feel uncertain. I have noticed how broken it is, and given that my friends' armies are not competetive in the slightest, I would feel bad if I sent such a top-tier unit against them. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Lootas, Vendetta, flying Hive Tyrant... Thousand Sons, Flash Gits, Pyrovores... Many are the units we view very differently now.

Now, this is not a problem that is solveable currently, really. We continue as we did in the past, but we are now minding a bit more of how strong the units we take really are. My question to you is, have you had similar experiences?

My playgroup has a lot of hoary veteran gamers who have already seen it all and come out the other side wiser people, in terms of the hobby. Fun comes first, and they're adult enough to be able to handle competition and such in a friendly manner. Of course, I started with forums before I even got to play, so I guess I'm pretty lucky in that I haven't had this experience. Just got to take everything with a grain of salt and not get too worked up over the opinions of others. Losing your 'innocence' doesn't mean that anything has to be ruined

A valid point. I have also felt the kind of same feeling when I came here the first time, I realised how differently do people view this game. The over-competitiveness of some people here is simply frustrating! It kills me to see a list here and after that some big guy comes and crushes the list utterly.

Example:
A somewhat new user makes an Eldar list. He has used fluffy units and simply asks if it will do. I go there and tell that it will stand a chance. Next thing I see is that another user comes and tells him to crush the current list and replace everything there with big bunch of DA in Serpents... I just can't stand that kind of disrespectfulness and rude ignoring of all the work and time the OP has put in his models. Then I'm being blamed for "giving bad advice purposefully".

I don't blame anyone, it's completely okay if you play competitively. But the least thing you could do is to show a little respect. Accept the fact that people have different goals with this game. Encourage to being your own self instead of forcing the use of most OP units.

That's what I ask from you, people of Dakkadakka. Is that too much?

For me, being a part of the forum and actually playing the game myself are two almost entirely separate entities, especially when in Tactics or Army Lists. Taking IG as an example:

In Tactics, I'll recommend platoon squads take lascannons and melta/plasma as they are the best options. In my own games, I take them with grenade launchers and flamers.

I'll suggest Vendettas as the best AA for Guard, and in my own games will never even consider running one.

The key to being able to enjoy the game in real life and also be a member of this online community is to know where you draw the line. What someone online on the other side of the world that you've never met says should never deter you from taking a unit for being either weak or OP. The community is a great place to come for tactics advice, and there is a lot of very sound opinions and idea out there, but at the end of the day, play the game how you want to.

The same goes for any community, there will be a prevailing opinion on most things, but that shouldn't ruin your enjoyment of them. Taking any TV series as an example, there will be certain episodes that people consider 'poor' or 'sub-par', but that doesn't mean I am not allowed to watch and enjoy them. It's ultimately up to you to form your opinions.

Don't worry about the hordes of Dakka descending on your gaming club to arrest you for taking one heldrake or not using a screamerstar. Knowing the standard opinion (and that's all it is) on what is good/bad and conforming to that opinion religiously are two entirely separate things.

OP, I hope you keep enjoying the game for what you make it, and that the internet doesn't ruin if for you.

Bringing one heldrake is ok. Bringing multiple helldrakes is ok too because it is legal within the rules. If someone is crying cheese OP WAAC bs at you, give him his own phone and tell him to call GW and whine to them. Seriously the game cost an arm and a leg and I am supposed to fix its rules? What a crap. Not to mention your job as a player is to be polite, civilised etc not to look out to not win too much. I played casual matches with really good players of table football for year and for a first half of that year I was stomped mercilessly every single game, noone even thought for a second to ease up on me or play worse to make me feel better, they were ok people though and there was a lot of fun in that pub, during game or around it heh. That's natural for every competitive (meaning where people play to win) game, not to mention that way I learned faster and achieved their level much sooner, I don't really get some attitudes here.

I have multiple armies and not a single one that has spam in it (unless 4 units of 7 plague marines count) But, if I wanted to field 4 Tervigons (or 7 for double FOC) because, for example, I find the idea of the huge beasts spawning legions of smaller beasts appealing and cinematic, I'd do it without a second of doubt. It's GW job to balance or forbid such situations, not mine. I keep my armies weaker armies to handicap myself and not score easy wins but have nothing against people bringing and spaming OP units.

 soomemafia wrote:
A somewhat new user makes an Eldar list. He has used fluffy units and simply asks if it will do. I go there and tell that it will stand a chance. Next thing I see is that another user comes and tells him to crush the current list and replace everything there with big bunch of DA in Serpents... I just can't stand that kind of disrespectfulness and rude ignoring of all the work and time the OP has put in his models. Then I'm being blamed for "giving bad advice purposefully".

So, how exactly do you know that the OP used "fluffy" units instead of just making bad choices? And why should you tell someone with a bad list that it's ok instead of giving them honest advice that it sucks and letting them decide whether having a chance of winning is worth giving up their idea?

Encourage to being your own self instead of forcing the use of most OP units.

Nobody is forcing anyone to use overpowered units. If you don't want to use them, don't use them. But don't insist that we give out bad advice because someone might listen to that advice and change their mind about what units to use.

Forums are, by their nature, geared towards competitive play. A forum for competitive play has pages of threads filled with people wanting to improve their army list, tactics, strategy and knowledge, a forum for fun play has a single post that says "do whatever you want, dude".

 Peregrine wrote:
So, how exactly do you know that the OP used "fluffy" units instead of just making bad choices? And why should you tell someone with a bad list that it's ok instead of giving them honest advice that it sucks and letting them decide whether having a chance of winning is worth giving up their idea?

Well mainly because he said he wants to try fluffy list
And that's the thing. The list didn't suck. It was a good list that could beat up my BA anytime with almost zero challenge. But it wasn't the most competitive. I simply said that it's a good list and meant it. But for some people, that wasn't enough (even tough it clearly was for OP).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Forums are, by their nature, geared towards competitive play. A forum for competitive play has pages of threads filled with people wanting to improve their army list, tactics, strategy and knowledge, a forum for fun play has a single post that says "do whatever you want, dude".

But there are so few people who understand the balance between these two. Wanting a fun list doesn't mean that you're losing volunteeringly.

Forum is not the problem. That is the reason forums exist. So that anything capable about the game can be discussed. The problem is that the game is going that way. And believe me you can change that. When I play with my buddies I choose to play casual and when I go to LGS I choose if want to play competitive. When I deal with a new player unfamiliar with the rules, I go as soft as mothers milk with him and I don't fill his mind with how he will make his army cheesy.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Forums are, by their nature, geared towards competitive play. A forum for competitive play has pages of threads filled with people wanting to improve their army list, tactics, strategy and knowledge, a forum for fun play has a single post that says "do whatever you want, dude".

Not always. Powergaming on the paradox interactive forum is actively looked down on, if you ask for help or advise people will assume you want fun/cool things to do, rather than telling you the best way to make yourself as powerful as possible.

Similarly on the baldur's gate forum everyone knows that fighter/mage is head and shoulders above everything else, but people don't spam every thread telling people to ignore fluff and roleplay and take fighter/mages. There are a couple of dickheads who go around the forum spamming the same old posts about how 'broken' and 'unplayable' bg is, the people who made it are amatuers, no playtesting, yada yada yada. But they are, happily, a minority.

avedominusnox wrote

I go as soft as mothers milk with him and I don't fill his mind with how he will make his army cheesy. I go as soft as mothers milk with him and I don't fill his mind with how he will make his army cheesy.

A liitle sincerity wouldn't be out of place Coz. You did show Alex the cheesiest list available and then went around shouting "i have created a monster"

I think it's important to remember that a great deal of the posts on Dakka aren't about "How to win with the most possible cheese!". The tactics sections are, well because y'know, tactics and all that.

OP, remember that you play this game for fun. If that's winning all the time at the expense of being WAAC or a TFG then, that's your thing. If you prefer to paint your armies and field the units everyone calls garbage, that can be your thing too. No one here at Dakka cares how you play, honestly, and even if they did there isn't a 40k Police that's going to fine you for not field a trip-Helldrake list instead of the list you want to field.

Note: I fielded Vendettas during 5th and the beginning of sixth when playing with my buddies. They never went the route of flyers so I pretty much dominated the skies and everything else. I realized that while I was winning a lot, it was detracting a great deal from the experience. So, I stopped using them, even though my W/L ratio suffers more for it. I don't really care what the tactics section says on Dakka, I play the way I want to play, to have fun.

Hopefully you remember why you started 40k in the first place and see Dakka as it is, a font of information for all things miniature (mostly).

The main thing I've taken from dakka is that Chaos is bad, Blood Angels are bad, Tau, Eldar, Necrons, Grey Knights are OP etc...

The main thing I've learnt while visiting is that any army can be fun to fight. I will fight anything at anytime - I'll use whatever list I feel like.

I'm not a massive fan of the tactics section - there are people who give very good advice and then people who...well I'm not keen on posts where somebody says (as an example)
'I like BA, whats a good place to start making a list'
The first answer almost always seems to be 'A good place to start would be Tau, Eldar or Necrons - BA suck!'

My preferred answer would be 'they're hard to use at the moment, but if you like them make them. They'll get a new codex soon etc'
Let them enjoy building an army. They aren't going to run headlong into the first tourney they see...
If I comment on list - I try to take into account what the OP has said - If they said 'I don't want to use x' I'll take that into account. If I don't feel I can add anything without arguing with the OP and saying 'take moar heldrake' then I won't post.
I love internet polarisation - We seem to believe that fun is only playing with bad units and competitive = waac. No in between.

For me, a good game is a close game - I don't care if I win as long as I get to kill something.

I actually see a lot of people giving good advice on Dakka for how best to use weaker units and armies.

The problem with forums is that the longer you post on them the more crap you see and the more hostile you get, until you completely lose any sense of reason and pick on people just because you can, manifesting huge superiority complexes. It's generally down to the mark of your own character whether after being told what a moron you're being you change.

Another forum I visit has a ratings system where any user can rate a post, and these ratings accumulate visibly directly below it and give direct and general opinions on any posts from a large sample of viewers. This strongly encourages well thought out and sensible posts and strongly discourages insulting, poor quality, illogical posts because people actively attempt to get positive ratings like 'agree', 'winner' or 'funny' and avoid ratings like 'dumb'. Its not the most pleasant system in the world but it works.

Unfortanutely, a particular user and a few others I've seen on this forum are so unwilling to change despite being called on out for being pricks again and again that they just become the cancer of the forum and drag it down. Their posts are the sort that just so moronic, missing the point, hypocritical and insulting that it makes bile well in my throat truly whenever I read them.

 Troike wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because that's a really low standard. You might have fun playing 40k despite its bad rules, but you'd probably have more fun if the rules were better.

A person has fun playing it? Then it has succeeded as a game, which demonstrates that it is, to some degree, good. Just because something can be improved doesn't invalidate the fun one has in playing it.

A more accurate criticism would be that 40K has issues with balance or its mechanics. To just say that it is bad altogether is a rather broad statement.

This exactly

since I came on Dakka I really have woken up to all the flaws in the 40k game system. Has that changed anything at all? Nope. I still play as I always have done, because those flaws in the system never really affected how I/my group played/enjoyed the game. While I concede that Peregrine is completely right that 40k has a lot of apparent and significant flaws, I do not think that it has deterred anything from the entertainment I get from playing it.

I've never had too many occurrences with competitive players; perhaps that is why I still stick to 40k like glue. I've played a few game systems, and perhaps I haven't played them enough to truly analyse them, but I personally think 40k is the most entertaining game system out there. It just turns to mush when competitive players want to use it, or when WAAC players wish to exploit it.

Notice how there is a difference between competitive and WAAC players... WAAC players are the ones who spam as many Helldrakes as possible, competitive ones are the ones who go "I might have 2 of those because they are the best option".

Unfortunately 40k isn't their "best option". While I'm not a competitive player in the slightest, I think it's a shame that 40k doesn't offer as many gems as it could to players like that.

Long story short... don't view crappy units any differently than you did before, whatever that view was before. Dakka certainly tells the truth about those units and rules, but why should that affect how individual people play the game?

G.A

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

Now, this is not a problem that is solveable currently, really. We continue as we did in the past, but we are now minding a bit more of how strong the units we take really are. My question to you is, have you had similar experiences?

First off, one flier isn't the end of the world. So don't sweat it.

After that, it's up to you and your gaming group how competitive you want your games. If you prefer fluffy army lists without much in the way of powerful units, that's a completely acceptable way for your group to play.

 kronk wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

Now, this is not a problem that is solveable currently, really. We continue as we did in the past, but we are now minding a bit more of how strong the units we take really are. My question to you is, have you had similar experiences?

First off, one flier isn't the end of the world. So don't sweat it.

After that, it's up to you and your gaming group how competitive you want your games. If you prefer fluffy army lists without much in the way of powerful units, that's a completely acceptable way for your group to play.

Also, nobody has too much hate for the heldrake with reaper autocannons. It's strong, but it's the flamer thing that really grinds people's gears.

I think a lot of gamers have played in a small circle, and then saw some outside tactics/lists/play styles, and realized how much more is out there, good and bad.

Being sensitive to the way your group wants to play is a good thing. It's honorable to want to keep everybody having fun, but don't totally deprive yourself of fun either. You'll find a balance, even if its only in tempering what you take and how you equipt it. One way is to watch what units really annoy your buddies. Generally, casual gamers are more interested in feeling like they can win than actually winning. Meaning, they'd rather have a good give and take through a battle, see their units accomplish what they are suppsoed to, and lose, rather than feel like they're playing in a vacuum, where their guns are useless, and win.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Hello, people.

Before I came to Dakkadakka, I and my little gaming group of 6-7 friends were playing together, painting, converting, making armies out of the models that we liked, and played. We gave little thought to questioning the rules or even if they were balanced or not. This all changed when we came here. I really like this forum but I can't look at 40K the same way again. For example, I had planned on adding a Heldrake to my army as I liked the model. Now, I feel uncertain. I have noticed how broken it is, and given that my friends' armies are not competetive in the slightest, I would feel bad if I sent such a top-tier unit against them. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Lootas, Vendetta, flying Hive Tyrant... Thousand Sons, Flash Gits, Pyrovores... Many are the units we view very differently now.

Now, this is not a problem that is solveable currently, really. We continue as we did in the past, but we are now minding a bit more of how strong the units we take really are. My question to you is, have you had similar experiences?

I first bought Rogue Trader back in 1987. Access to forums hasn't shown me anything I didn't already know: That 40k is an unbalanced game that is written poorly for "coolness" factor instead of solidity as a ruleset, BUT has a cool story and awesome miniatures supporting it. As for your specific issue, there is a difference between including a heldrake in your CSM army, and building a CSM army that has 3 heldrakes and is fully designed to herd the enemy into the baleflamers for greatest effect. Since you play in a consistent group you can more easily address concerns of over powered lists. My own group is the same way. We all have a consistent approach and attitude towards playing the game so some issues like spam netlists are never a problem for us. Just the fact that you are *concerned* about it is a good sign. If you were instead posting that you were playing netlist X and your gaming group are such a bunch of wusses and always complain I'd write you off, but you are concerned so don't sweat it. If you think a unit is "too good" don't use more than one of them in a game and don't bring it to every game. It is really that simple to deal with. For years my group has let me mix and match chaos units into a combined force from vraks, eye of terror, CSM and CD books without issue. It helps that the mentality on my end is to use some lesser seen units, or add proper daemons to my CSM force with the last CSM book and its generic daemons and not to just combine all the heavy power hitters from all the various sources into one killer list. No one is ever going to call an elite slot taken up by Big Mutants from the Eye of Terror codex overpowered by any estimation.

Just stay mindful of the things and keep the discussion open with your crew so that everyone stays on that same page. If everyone decides netlists would be more fun, then everyone has decided and it is good. If one person just starts showing up with netlists it will tend to annoy the other players a bit.

Skriker

konst80hummel wrote:
avedominusnox wrote

I go as soft as mothers milk with him and I don't fill his mind with how he will make his army cheesy. I go as soft as mothers milk with him and I don't fill his mind with how he will make his army cheesy.

A liitle sincerity wouldn't be out of place Coz. You did show Alex the cheesiest list available and then went around shouting "i have created a monster"

But that is the feeling of a mad scientist when he accidentally creates something unfortunate out of nothing.
Ok damn I did it.

To the OP...

I got into 40k during 5th edition by way of a guy that had been playing for 15+ years. The other guys in the group had all been playing since nearly rouge trader era. I started looking at the 40k stuff and was drawn to space marines immediately. I got fully into it and bought the stuff I thought was cool. I lost a hell of a lot of games and even got tabled in my very first game in the group. My learning curve was severly steep though and started giving those guys a real run for their money. I had no idea that dakka dakka existed and continued to buy units and swap army builds and try out new tactics. I got a friend of mine into it and he went crazy on necrons. He and I play pretty regular and we've tabled each other a few times. But we've had fun every single time. I don't see getting tabled as a bad thing. I see it as an opportunity to learn something and try to prevent it in the future.

I've only had one game out of all of the ones I've played where I didn't have fun. I brought some forgeworld units to a game against a guy that had remained unbeaten in the group for nearly 20 years with orks. He bashed my models and the rule sets for em the entire game as he tabled me by round 3. It was pretty miserable to have your army questioned in a friendly game and then have it obliterated all at the same time. The next game I played was against a tyranid player that thought he would table me by round 2 or 3 as well. He threw what he thought was his best units and tactics at me with the full intent on crushing my army into the ground. Not for the fun of it but to punish me as I was the newer guy in the group and he was a big bad tyranid player and I was a lowly marine player and there's no way marines should win. In sitting back and playing defense, I tabled him by round 4. He got so mad that he gave up the game and hasn't played since. In my opinion, he doesn't need to be playing any type of game really. He's a poor loser on the extreme end of the scale.

The knowledge I have came from good old fashioned play testing and I didn't rely on dakka dakka to tell me what to run in my builds. An example would be that I take assault marines in most of my builds with a chaplain attached. Start a thread about how this would do in a game and watch it get torn apart. My assault marines have done more damage in games then they have let me down so I include then in almost every build I make. But that's me. If you wanna run your helldrake, I say run it. It will make the others in your group step up their tactics for sure. I entered my little group and showed them some stuff they hadn't seen before and that made them step up their tactics and builds to make it more competitive but still an absolute blast to play. We all shake hands at the end of the games and sit around and talk about the mistakes we made or the mistakes our opponents made and why they should change this or why we should change that. That's the best way to play it out and learn. Dakka dakka can be used as a reference but don't take it as gospel. Let your own experiences dictate how you have fun in your own group. I've never let dakka dakka or any other forum influence my idea of how the game should go. I'm on this forum pretty regular and love reading through the threads. Having read through lots of posts, I still have as much fun as I did when I started and continue to use the units I've come to love.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The problem with forums is that the longer you post on them the more crap you see and the more hostile you get, until you completely lose any sense of reason and pick on people just because you can, manifesting huge superiority complexes. It's generally down to the mark of your own character whether after being told what a moron you're being you change. .

That's not a problem with forums, it's a problem with certain people. It's definitely not universal... I'm far more laid back now than I was when I first started posting on forums.

The game has become so much more unbalanced lately that it feels like the only way to play friendly games is just to try fun new things. I would like to make an uber competitive list, but I can't without risking my group's enjoyment. It's kinda disappointing because a lot of my enjoyment comes from list-building. I wish 40k would incorporate more skill into the game and drift away from being so meta-based. A meta-based game promotes competitive list-building which in turn ruins some opponent's enjoyment because they play for the fluff and the social experience.

I used to play 2nd ed 40k.

People used to decry it as "herohammer" and "broken as all get out". I couldn't see their arguments.

Just because it IS possible to break something and make it unfun, it doesn't necessarily follow that you HAVE to do so.

We (my group) was part of this other crowd. It never occurred to us to actually "break" the game as doing so would kinda defeat the purpose we had in playing it.

Everything you hear on the Internet should be taken with a couple spoonfuls of salt.

Lessay you were walking down the street just minding your own business, carrying boxes to play some 40k. All of a sudden a black van screeches to a halt next to you, and a stranger in a dirty fur suit and horse mask leaps out and starts screaming at you about the list you're taking and the models you're using and how you should really be doing something else. You would certainly be paying attention to the situation, but quite possibly wouldn't consider the garbled shouts and incoherent tangents to be completely reliable advice. And you certainly wouldn't accept his invitation into the recesses of his van.

The Internet and its many dark, foreboding forums are the same way. Except its a gigantic crowd of anonymous people in horse costumes all shouting and arguing as loud as they can, clopping their hooves together to get your attention and trying to lure you into their vans.

Briefly skim what they have to say. Refrain from getting personally involved in their shouting matches. Never believe what they say until you've tried it yourself. And never get in their vans. Everyone on the Internet is a serial killer.