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 don't know about that. I see plenety of people wanting to play small, quick games where-ever I go. Tournment or competitve stuff is often different matter, but I guess it just depends on where you are.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Alphabet wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.

Oh bullgak. Longevity is not an indication of success or of competence. There have been (and still are) plenty of companies that muddle along without going under, but still do things wrong.

Yes but 40k hasn't "muddled' along, it has been and still is successful. By all means discredit the rules, the models but not the success of the company..

You mean the company that has dropped entire ranges of games and let competitors move in, allowed competitors to enter the field by virtue of offering cheaper alternatives and balanced rules, and has experienced reduced revenue and lost customers? That is what passes for success nowadays?

So for a company to be successful it has to be the best %100 of the time, the entire time its around. Is that what your saying?

Are you actually trying to say Games Workshop isn't a successful company? All your grudges aside, you actually think that?

Speaking for myself, if someone wanted to play me in a 500 point game, I'd be extremely happy to oblige.

foureyes69 wrote:
I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak.

It's far far worse than you've been led to believe.

GW will run over your dog, steal your wife and beat your children.

When that's done, GW will take everything you own leaving you homeless and destitute.

Finally, GW will torture and imprison you in the deepest darkest dungeon hidden in the bowels of Warhammer World forcing you to play games with TFG because you aren't allowed to choose your own adventure.

Seriously... Or that could be the recruiting poster for the dark eldar. I get confused sometimes.

-----

Or, it just might be that GW has created a fairly large and deep universe through books, game materials and miniatures which you just might enjoy. While random people you'll never even meet in person, and have absolutely no bearing on your life, will call you names such as White Knight or claim you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome if you even dare to speak about your positive experiences.

The Internet is littered with self-righteous, sarcastic and whiney little self-absorbed who absolutely believe that the only valid opinion is their own. Treat whatever they say with all appropriate respect.

yeah its a fun game, and its a game that inherantly is supposed to be tailored to how you like it should you want to change anything.

personally, I like large games, but i love squad level ones or even hero hammer ones.

nothing stops you from using necromunda rules, making up your own d10 rules for hero hammer and so on.

in the end, the painting and modelling aspect is also lots of, if not the most, fun! after all, there is a reason why we play a game with models in the computer game era

Is it worth it?

Not to me or the other seven players who have quit since 6th edition.

Much like anything else your group might embrace it and be perfectly happy.

Expect to pay above market to build a typical army. Expect to spend time puzzling out the arcane wording in between the rules, codex, dataslates, and expansions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it worth it?

Not to me or the other seven players who have quit since 6th edition.

Much like anything else your group might embrace it and be perfectly happy.

Expect to pay above market to build a typical army. Expect to spend time puzzling out the arcane wording in between the rules, codex, dataslates, and expansions.

foureyes69 wrote:
Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.

What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?

YES! The models, building, painting, converting is relaxing and VERY FULL FILLING. It will amaze you how personal and rewarding a completed army is.

It is a good investment. You will get a good return on your collection if you know where and how to sell and army.

Collecting the miniatures is addictive and becomes crack once you start getting the good stuff...Forgeworld kits!

The game itself. With a good natured and fun group, the game is a BLAST!! In a tournament setting...it's like Magic the Gathering. Alot of the same successful lists and builds .

This is a very good hobby to get into. Remember, the satisfied ones are playing and building. So majority of what you see online is people who have complaints, some have the need to hate on it for the sake of hating on it. So don't base you interest solely on what you read online.

Start small. Buy the battle force for the army you want. TAKE YOUR TIME, build it paint it. The slowley build upon that battle force by buying what ya need. Build and paint and move on to the next. The journey is arguably more fun than the destination.

clively wrote:


The Internet is littered with self-righteous, sarcastic and whiney little self-absorbed who absolutely believe that the only valid opinion is their own. Treat whatever they say with all appropriate respect.

I'm interested whether this is said with any degree of irony?

Probably not.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

foureyes69 wrote:
it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make

Unfortunately people rarely play at 500 points. A normal game of 40k is at least 1000 points, and usually 1500-2000. Few people will have 500 point armies available for you to play against, and they may or may not have any interest in such a tiny game (I wouldn't). So if you think you're only going to spend that much money you're going to be putting yourself in a situation where the only way to get a game is to beg someone to give you a newbie teaching game. If you want to play normal pickup games at your local store you're going to need at least a 1500 point army.

You're kidding right? My FLGS runs Combat Patrol games every Friday Nights, with the limit of 500 points. 500 point games are quite common, you just have to ask your opponent. Most people can easily whip up a 500 point army in 2 seconds.

You assume your FLGS is indicative of anything other than your FLGS. In my experience across a few game stores (before I stopped playing and when I was considering starting up again) people will very rarely play small point games unless it's a newbie's first couple of games, barring things like escalation leagues or small point campaign and tournament games.

My point is that Peregrine acts like 500 point games are impossible to play, and OP will never ever find one. I know not all LGS will run these, but everyone I've met have always been more than happy to play a small game. Also, OP is a newbie, so your last sentence is invalid.

I have to echo the previous sentiments that how much you will enjoy the game will be determined by what you expect from a game and the community you get to play with. Be aware going in that the rules are horribly unbalanced and will require a lot of discussion with your opponents to make sure you are all on the same page with how to interpret ambiguous rules (you can dice off during the game, but I personally feel this is a horrible way to handle rules issues). I play GW's games because I love the fluff, I love my Tyranids, and my playgroup plays 40K and we have a really cool set of people that we play with. My advice if you do decide to start 40k and you want to be semi-competitive (meaning you care at least a little about winning), make sure you do research on the DE army as all armies have units that are ideal and models that might as well not exist in their respective codices and it's good to know which is which going in so you don't find yourself buying very expensive models that you will end up not using at all.

foureyes69 wrote:
I was pretty sure that I was just seeing typical forum venting.

It really isn't just 'typical' forum venting. Yes, people moan about every little thing on the internet. I've seen it on all kinds of boards, from PC games to movies. But GW's issues go way beyond that. They probably have the poorest customer satisfaction record of any company that is still managing to do business. They had to close down their own forums because of the constant backlash. A lot of people are confounded that GW even do manage to stay in business. It's probably people like yourself that prop them up. New people, who are still excited about the game, will drop a few hundred dollars on getting started, probably buy a load of paints and supplies too (that they could have got cheaper elsewhere). Then you'll either keep playing and continue to pay the 'rent', or you'll get fed up and complain on the internet.

Even hardcore GW apologists will tell you not to buy their hobby tools or glue. You can get better stuff elsewhere for half what they are charging (this is a reoccurring theme with GW). The same is true for paint, even if you like their paint, it's about double the price of Vallejo and Coat d'arms. Their game rules are really overpriced (considering some systems have free rules). This is one of the things that really annoys people. Every time they bring out a new rulebook or codex, 90% of it will be rehashing stuff you've already read (catalog photos and fluff that hasn't changed for 20 years). But you're still expected to buy it to get the 5 pages of rules you need to keep playing. Or if they do sell the rules separately, they'll put the price up so they'll cost the same anyway.

They do have a lot of nice miniatures. I find the scale a bit cartoony after playing with other stuff, but I can't fault the quality. My only issue with the miniatures is the cost. GW are huge for a wargamming company, with a lot of buying and manufacturing power. And yet they charge more for injection molded plastic than some other smaller companies are charging for metal. That's what really grinds my gears. Why are ten metal IG from the 1990s £21, and yet 10 metal SoB from the 90s are £50? Their prices just have no basis in reality. It's like they just pick a number, double it, add 7+d6, and multiply it by however much their sales dropped this year.

So to answer your question of "is it worth it?". For paints and supplies: no it is not worth it, look elsewhere. For rules and books: It's arguably worth it the first time, but in the long term you'll need to buy the same crap over and over to keep playing, so it's not worth it. The miniatures aren't worth it in any objective sense, but the subjective value you place on them is really up to you.

I think if you have a lot of money, and you don't mind spending it frivolously, then there is no reason you can't enjoy GW. In the long term you should probably be prepared to spend a few thousand on not very much, if you want to keep playing for any amount of time.

40k is an awesome game for people who like to buy, model, and upgrade tons of new, interesting, and cool units with good fluff and a good universe. Each faction has more depth (possible units to choose from) than any other game.

For the same reason, 40k is a horrible game for people who want to just buy a minimal number of models and play a wargame. Each faction has too many units to choose from, with many configurations totally inferior, as compared to any other game. Until you reach a tipping point, to strengthen your army in 40k, or to provide a solution to a type of problem, you must buy more models, rather than adjust strategy with your existing models.

40k hobbyists is divided into people who enjoy just the modelling and fluff, those that play for fun, and those that want to win at any cost.

The WAAC/ultracompetitive players are no fun to play in 40k in my opinion, because while it's possible to have fantastic themetic games between two players who are competitive, the ultracompetitive players min/max armies and abuse the best troops in a fashion that you cannot win unless you also play a very competitive a list, or play an army that is specifically tailored to combat their list. This severely limits the units and tactics to choose from, because essentially you're trying to abuse exploitable features and units of the rules and codices.

The game is also extremely unfair (impossible to play, and frustrating) if one player has a vast collection of exotic units to choose from, like vehicles and flyers, and the other player only has starter box units. There are units that can be deployed where one side has no way of killing that one unit.

For the same reason, the game can be extremely fun, because tailoring an army taking down those gigantic monstrosities can be epic and TONS of fun between friends. As someone else said, the success of it largely depends on the friends you play with -- but frankly, I find this to be the case with any game.

40k doesn't have to be very expensive, if you're a casual player. However, if you really get into it and love your army, it's almost impossible to stop buying cool stuff.

By the way, Dark Eldar are not the most powerful army, but neither are they broken by any means, and they have some of the absolutely coolest models. I think their basic troops are awesome sculpts (much more detailed than Eldar), and their transports are just so unique, and they have very cool looking special units (like Talos).

 Alphabet wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Alphabet wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.

Oh bullgak. Longevity is not an indication of success or of competence. There have been (and still are) plenty of companies that muddle along without going under, but still do things wrong.

Yes but 40k hasn't "muddled' along, it has been and still is successful. By all means discredit the rules, the models but not the success of the company..

You mean the company that has dropped entire ranges of games and let competitors move in, allowed competitors to enter the field by virtue of offering cheaper alternatives and balanced rules, and has experienced reduced revenue and lost customers? That is what passes for success nowadays?

So for a company to be successful it has to be the best %100 of the time, the entire time its around. Is that what your saying?

Are you actually trying to say Games Workshop isn't a successful company? All your grudges aside, you actually think that?

Have you READ their recent financial reports? Or read analyses from smart businesspeople who HAVE read the financials?

 jreilly89 wrote:
My point is that ... acts like 500 point games are impossible to play, and OP will never ever find one. I know not all LGS will run these, but everyone I've met have always been more than happy to play a small game.

I think 500 points is the perfect level to start learning the game...then gradually up the game by 250, then another 250, rinse and repeat.

That's how I learned anyways!

Talys wrote:


40k hobbyists is divided into people who enjoy just the modelling and fluff, those that play for fun, and those that want to win at any cost.

No it isn't, because all players are a blend of some or all of those aspects. Further, that way oversimplifies the issues people have with the game.

Finally, win at any cost does not mean competitive. It means someone who wants to win at the expense of the enjoyment of the other player. Playing/wanting a competitive level game with a strong, optimized list is not WAAC.

Then again, I dislike anyone's attempt to try and partition the community into a series of easily defined categories and try to explain the problems or benefits of being one in one of those categories. Its far more nuanced than that.

The problems surrounding 40k are the cost/prices, the poor rules wording, the disconnect between fluff and crunch, and GW's customer interactions. Regardless of what kind of player you indentify as, one of those issues will likely affect you in some way. The problems either don't exist, or exist in a far less meaningful way in other games. The advantage of 40k is the rather large universe and options for customization. Outside of that, I'd argue nearly any other game is superior to 40k.

I used to regularly chop myself into thirds, back when my flgs supported 40k, there was the third of me that likes to win, the third of me that likes the fluff and the third that enjoys gaming with friends, I thought everyone did that?

Also woo 5 years into dakka and finally over the 400 post mark. I'm doing it team.

 Blacksails wrote:

No it isn't, because all players are a blend of some or all of those aspects. Further, that way oversimplifies the issues people have with the game.

Finally, win at any cost does not mean competitive. It means someone who wants to win at the expense of the enjoyment of the other player. Playing/wanting a competitive level game with a strong, optimized list is not WAAC.

Then again, I dislike anyone's attempt to try and partition the community into a series of easily defined categories and try to explain the problems or benefits of being one in one of those categories. Its far more nuanced than that.

I disagree. To me, Win At Any Cost means, having the list that will give you the highest win ratio, regardless of (not at the expense of) the other player's fun. What you're describing is a griefer, whereas I am saying that a player who keeps track of their win ratio (for instance, at a gaming group that keeps a scoreboard) and wants it to be as high as possible will field armies that casual players who haven't spent a lot of money in 40k won't be able to win against. They are happy to have a good game or a roflstomp game, as long as they win.

Someone who has spent $300 in 40k can play the game, and they can even have fun against casual players, but they CANNOT compete against someone who has invested $10,000 (or many multiples of that) in 40k and is determined to win, in a typical point value game. Compare with Magic the Gathering. Someone who has spent $300, no matter how brilliant they are and how much they've worked on their cards, will have a horrible win ratio against someone with equal skill who has spent $10,000 (or many multiples of that) on cards. Granted, you can choose what you buy in 40k, as opposed to blindly popping boosters, but you can't buy the tools you need to win against a variety of opponents on a budget, if winning is really important to you. I'll just say it: these are games that reward those with disposable incomes with the possibility of game-winning advantages.

I do concede that the 40k gaming world isn't cut and dry; for instance, I largely like to model (40+ hours a week), and only infrequently play with friends (40+ hours a year). In my youth, it was reversed, as I would play at least 3-4 nights a week.

I was more or less trying to distinguish between people who want to play 40k who are willing to spend lots of money and really, really want to win; and people who just play it casually, for whatever reason. Those two groups do not mix well in 40k, whereas they can mix much better in other games. I am not implying that there is anything wrong with either, or anyone in between.

 Ailaros wrote:

Bartali wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

....40k is one of, if not the only, game that actually encourages a close-knit "clique" to play it without frustration instead of encouraging a wide range of opponents and a "play anywhere" type of mentality.....

That's Jervis and his 80's D&D obsession for you

Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.

That only proves when GW dies that their IP will be picked up by another company. They aren't doing something right if their company folds, they just created a popular game that they are to dumb to market right.

Talys wrote:
To me, Win At Any Cost means, having the list that will give you the highest win ratio, regardless of (not at the expense of) the other player's fun.

There is far more to it than having a strong army list. It's far more about the player's attitude than about what models they are using.

Someone who has spent $300 in 40k can play the game, and they can even have fun against casual players, but they CANNOT compete against someone who has invested $10,000 (or many multiples of that) in 40k and is determined to win, in a typical point value game.

Are you talking about 40K here?

Because the above would only be true if you're ignoring points limits and just putting everything you own on the table. Otherwise, the amount you spend is far less relevant than what you actually spend it on.

A powerful army doesn't necessarily cost any more than a rubbish one.

Compare with Magic the Gathering.

Or don't, because the systems are completely different. In MtG, where most of the more powerful cards are harder to get, yes, you have to spend more to build a more powerful deck.

That's not the case with 40K. The powerful units aren't generally only available in limited quantities through resellers who make their money by trading on card rarity.

 Azreal13 wrote:

clively wrote:


The Internet is littered with self-righteous, sarcastic and whiney little self-absorbed who absolutely believe that the only valid opinion is their own. Treat whatever they say with all appropriate respect.

I'm interested whether this is said with any degree of irony?

No. The right word would be hypocrisy.

Speaking personally, I used to enjoy it but it simply has become too expensive and at the same time less enjoyable in various ways, and the balance point has been crossed. My money and time is better spent on other games.

As stated, this is my personal experience.

Is it worth it? Only if you have a close knit group of like-minded friends and already have some models. Trying for pick-up-games is a chore at best (if you want any facsimile of balance) and at 500pts that could buy a full size force in many other games.

Go see what your local stores are like. See what's being played and how they play. If you can find that right group you're looking for, then maybe go for it. If not, then you're much better served with a game that can more easily be played by complete strangers and is far easier on the wallet. (every other game)

And please don't dismiss criticisms as just mindless internet complaining. There are serious problems with the game. It does have its upsides and for some its just the right kind of gaming experience. But you do need to be aware of the cons before jumping into such an expensive hobby.

After weighing both pros and cons and checking out the local scene, then make the decision.

 jasper76 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
My point is that ... acts like 500 point games are impossible to play, and OP will never ever find one. I know not all LGS will run these, but everyone I've met have always been more than happy to play a small game.

I think 500 points is the perfect level to start learning the game...then gradually up the game by 250, then another 250, rinse and repeat.

That's how I learned anyways!

This. I think this is OPs best bet.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with jreilly and jasper in that the best way to get into 40k is in 250-500 point increments. It helps you build up your army in your preferred playstyle and prevents unnecessary investment if you decide 40k isn't your thing.

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
To me, Win At Any Cost means, having the list that will give you the highest win ratio, regardless of (not at the expense of) the other player's fun.

There is far more to it than having a strong army list. It's far more about the player's attitude than about what models they are using.

Someone who has spent $300 in 40k can play the game, and they can even have fun against casual players, but they CANNOT compete against someone who has invested $10,000 (or many multiples of that) in 40k and is determined to win, in a typical point value game.

Are you talking about 40K here?

Because the above would only be true if you're ignoring points limits and just putting everything you own on the table. Otherwise, the amount you spend is far less relevant than what you actually spend it on.

A powerful army doesn't necessarily cost any more than a rubbish one.

Compare with Magic the Gathering.

Or don't, because the systems are completely different. In MtG, where most of the more powerful cards are harder to get, yes, you have to spend more to build a more powerful deck.

That's not the case with 40K. The powerful units aren't generally only available in limited quantities through resellers who make their money by trading on card rarity.

1. You're right. It's entirely about the player's attitude. I'm suggesting that someone who's attitude is mostly about winning is less compatible with a casual player in 40k than it would be in many other miniature wargames. The original question was, "is 40k as bad as everyone says it is?".

2. What you say about budget is simply not true. In a 1500-2000 point game, there is plenty of space for exotic units, like a FW titan, multiple wraithknights, or Imperial Knights. Even if you wanted to play wave serpent spam, each 6 Fire Dragon models cost $50 and 6 Wave Serpents will already cost you $300. Each Independent Character is $30+. Each Titan-sized model is $150+. FW stuff is really pricey -- Want a Gargantuan Squiggoth? I think they're $700+.

Let's dumb it down, and just talk about Space Marines. Ask almost anyone experienced, "which chapter do I pick to be the most powerful?" and they'll say, "Salamanders for templates". These are *expensive* -- like $56 for a squad of 5. I mean, way, way, way more expensive than Dark Angels out of DV, or an Ultramarine Battleforce. Want Vulkan? Sure, no problem, pay nearly $100 for one Independent Character.

This is far less of an issue with Warmahoardes. Again, this is to respond to the question, "is 40k really as bad as everyone says it is?" -- these issues of unit disparity and "requirement" to spend leaves some people with a bad taste in their mouth about 40k. If 40k were an online game and every unit were available to every player, much of the feeling of unfairness would disappear.

Furthermore, you get killed by not knowing the rules if you're a casual player, against a highly experienced one, simply because you're unlikely to own (or have read) all the codices and special rules.

3. I know that TCGs are totally different from miniature wargames, but I gave the comparison to MtG because there are those people who will play and pay to win, and those who like the game and play casually (not that they don't like to win). It actually sucks to be the group in between, because you still lose against all the people with vast collections, and have an unfair advantage (or unnecessary investment) against the pure casuals.

Also, in MtG, you can specifically have every card you want without randomness, as long as you're willing to pay the shop price for it. Typically, someone with massive disposable income who gets into the game simply spends $2000 (or whatever) on boosters, and then just picks out any cards they want that they are missing and buys the couple of must-have cards. It's actually no more expensive than 40k to really have "everything" in.

One's enjoyment of 40K is directly related to one's local gaming scene. If there's a lot of people in your area who play, then finding a game at any points level won't be much of a problem. It also offers a chance to try out different armies and playstyles, and learn from people who've been playing more often.

However, 40K is still a really expensive game. While you might start out small, that's only going to last so long, and before you know it, you've sunk half a year's pay into it.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Is it worth it? Only if you have a close knit group of like-minded friends and already have some models. Trying for pick-up-games is a chore at best (if you want any facsimile of balance) and at 500pts that could buy a full size force in many other games.

Go see what your local stores are like. See what's being played and how they play. If you can find that right group you're looking for, then maybe go for it. If not, then you're much better served with a game that can more easily be played by complete strangers and is far easier on the wallet. (every other game)

And please don't dismiss criticisms as just mindless internet complaining. There are serious problems with the game. It does have its upsides and for some its just the right kind of gaming experience. But you do need to be aware of the cons before jumping into such an expensive hobby.

After weighing both pros and cons and checking out the local scene, then make the decision.

I totally agree with this. It is COMPLETELY about the play group, as 40k is not at all friendly to people who are strangers and where there is a large spending disparity. On the other hand, it's the most awesome game I have every played amongst the friends I play with, with epic battles and such wide varieties of units.

No, 40k is rather unlike MTG in that whoever has the consistently deepest pockets wins.

If you play a 1,000 point game, the person who spent $10,000 won't have a significant advantage over the person who spent $300. As Insaniak said, it's only when you're playing at huge points levels that money starts to matter.

Meanwhile, even though 40k changes over time, it's nowhere near like MTG. A space marine has had the same model for the same unit with the same equipment and statline for a very long time now. Only the points cost has changed, and very slightly at that. If you have a balance marine army, when a new codex or rules edition comes out, you probably won't have to buy a single new thing. Unlike MTG, where you basically have to start all over again every time something changes.

Also, 40k allows proxying, which MTG doesn't at all, and the power curve for 40k isn't nearly as exponential as MTG. Once again, showing up with a balanced space marine list means you're arriving with more or less the same power level as most lists. Showing up with a mid-strength MTG deck just means you lose every single game you play. In 40k, those few broken superpower things are well known and have names because there are so few of them, while MTG has to come out with a new lexicon a few times a year it seems like.

MTG and 40k do have a lot in common, I'd agree, but not on this particular issue. In order for 40k to be like MTG here, then the standard rules for 40k would be all armies are unbound, and you can bring as many models as you want, regardless of points cost. 40k may be moving in a more liberal direction, but it still has much more core structure than MTG likely ever will.

 Ailaros wrote:
No, 40k is rather unlike MTG in that whoever has the consistently deepest pockets wins.

If you play a 1,000 point game, the person who spent $10,000 won't have a significant advantage over the person who spent $300. As Insaniak said, it's only when you're playing at huge points levels that money starts to matter.

This is not true. Someone with $10,000 and 3 or 4 armies can simply pick an optimized army against the person they're playing against, because after they play once, they'll know what the limits of the $300 player are. The person is playing 1000 points of CSM out of DV? Bring out those Grey Knights. Dark Angels out of DV? Hello, Eldar. There's no answer in the DV box to Wraithknights and Wave Serpents.

At $300, you can't surprise someone, and you're highly limited in what you can field. Now, granted, there are diminishing returns, so someone who spends $2,000 will not necessarily have a problem against someone who has spent $10,000. But $2,000 is a lot of money to a lot of people to toss at a game.

I also bring up MtG, because they are played by a lot of the same people, at a lot of the same places. And, the people who are ultracompetitive at MtG also tend to be ultracompetitive at 40k. While I totally agree with everything you say about 40k and MtG, *many* of the complaints about 40k are the same -- rules change too frequently (or at least, you have to buy rules/codexes too often...), cost is too high to stay competitive, when you see your opponent, you might as well forfeit, and mid-strength force is a an unfair match against ultracompetitive force.

And: both are poor games against total strangers, if you aren't spendy, because feeling totally powerless is not fun, which is possible in either game. There are game alternatives in which this is not so.