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.

Akiasura wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

With the absurd range on the guns, destructive ability of the guns, and overall power level of the guns, the codex will be dangerous in anyone's hands. More than any other dex, considering the lack of bad units in the dex that a bad player would take.
The necron codex with the new formation is very strong, but is good in anyone's hand. You pretty much push the wraiths forward and hide the spyder.

Army lists tend to come in 2 varieties in most table top games. They either ask questions or answer questions. The ones that ask questions don't require nearly as much tactical work as the ones that answer questions. This is true in 40k, WMH, infinity, and most of the games I have seen.
The necron codex asks "Can you kill all my absurdly tough guys before they reach your lines?"
The SM codex asks "Can you stop my deathstar from destroying your army?"
The new Eldar codex asks "Can you withstand my shooting?"
It's easy to build this question from the army book compared to say, daemons, who are a strong army that requires a bit more work.

You make it sound so easy for someone to pick up and army and master the rules. I don't know if this is true for everyone.

It should take around 10 games. This is a pretty small learning curve compared to shooting games, fighting games, MOBAs, and other table tops.

Really? People need that many games to just master rules and a single army? Either that is a hyperbole or everyone I play with is incredibly smart. And personally I found Warmachine, FoW and Dystopian Wars all easier to learn than 40k. 40k takes more time to master due to the sheer amount of rules.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

If that requires some kind of evidence, assume I am just a boastful jerk, consider your own experiences and go from there. I would say it's only about 3 out of every 10 players I meet really know how to use the rules to their advantage, which would correspond with the upper end of a bell curve (it's actually being a little generous.)

I think you'd have to define using the rules to their advantage. 40k isn't an indepth system, and the majority of decisions are made in the list building stages. Anyone with an ability to work the most basic of statistics can see what units are good, make sure they have threat saturation, and go from there. I would say 3 in 10 don't have the ability to do this, and depending on your meta more or less may opt not to.
Figuring out how a deathstar operates, for example, is using the rules to help you, but anyone can do that given google and a short amount of time. There is little the enemy can stop it.

It takes more than good shooting to win games.

Akiasura wrote:
Making proper use of cover, target priority, choosing the right psychic powers, knowing the AV for enemy tanks, placing fortifications, making use of buildings, understanding terrain, knowing how to take and hold strategic points, making full use of cards in Maelstrom games, good deployments, knowing your opponent's armies and special rules, making effective use of psychic dice, etc. These are some of the the fundamentals I see too many people lacking in when the bring competitive lists. They count on some tricks working with their lists and don't know what to do when something doesn't go right.

Proper use of cover requires you to just be in cover. And don't bunch up if the enemy has blast templates.
Target priority is knowing what the weapons in the enemy list do and which units can hurt which model. There are few stats in this game and they are on a small scale, this doesn't take long to master either. The spammy nature of 40k means generally there are 1-3 main threats in an enemy army and you need to destroy it. With death stars it's even easier, just difficult to do anything. You have won or list in list building.
You don't get to chose psychic powers, they are randomly generated. If you mean disciplines, there are a few good ones (about 2-3) that are always amazing for any army and the rest are pretty bad.
The next 3 points are terrain which, again, mostly just require you to be in it.
Maelstrom cards are completely random and can not be planned for. Sometimes your enemy doesn't even have fliers for example. If your army is fast, and the best ones are, it's easier to grab them. This isn't infinity.
Good deployments are somewhat difficult to master and take a few games. Maybe 5-6. People who complain against drop pod armies usually are bad at deployments.
Psychic dice are also easy and requires a basic understanding of probability. If you only need 1-2 powers it becomes even easier. How the phase works is complicated but the system itself is easy. Defense is almost completely random and you usually have one spell you must stop, so you save it for that.

I somewhat agree with this, list building is the most important aspect of winning the game. It does take more than just a good list to win though, especially with more challenging armies such as DE or Orks. Good positioning and deployment are almost as important as a good list if you want to win, and having a good understanding of your opponent's army and setting target priorities (which goes far beyond 1-3 main threats) are also important. And of course a bit of luck.

Akiasura wrote:
This is nothing complicated, like order of activation, when do I feat, how do I spread out my orders, memorizing an entire map, knowing how to jungle, or any other game I've played. 40k is a very tactically shallow game.

It is not the most tactical of games no, and it is also not designed to be. Yet it goes beyond just list building. If that were the case, we could just stick to mathhammer and produce results that are actually somewhat reliable.

Akiasura wrote:

The fact a good player doesn't know what a match up means is really just a statement of how tactically shallow 40k is. Any other competitive game, nearly every player would know what that term refers to.

This is where you stop making sense. 40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such (The first pages of the rulebook clearly state it is a 'narrative game') 40k is a modelling hobby with attached tabletop RPG, not a video game MOBA with rankings, achievements etc.

Akiasura wrote:
40k has worked that way across it's entire existence. Editions are defined by what was the most competitive list at the time, not who were the best players like you see in other games.
Again, you don't understand what a matchup is, so it's hard to have a discussion about how competitive something is when you don't have the jargon down.
Leaf blower, rhino rush, 5e grey knights, falcon spam, Siren bomb. The names of the lists have nicknames. In other games the players have nicknames, like JVM, M2K, Boss.
It shows you what players focus on when they talk about the game.

In Warmachine and FoW lists have names too. (Winter Guard deathstar anyone?)

"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.


40k's basic rules are easy to pick up, but the amount of special and unit-based rules is a lot larger than in every other game I play. Combined with the amount of different factions and units, it can take quite a bit of time before you know every single rule.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.

There isn't much fun to getting stomped over and over and over. And yes, the rules describe a victor and loser.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Does GW still "Apocalypse" from "non-Apocalypse" any more? As I understand it, it's all 40k. Flyers are everywhere. Superheavies and D weapons are in Codex: Knights; Gargantuans and D weapons are in Codex: Eldar. Assume Guard will get Superheavies, and Nids will get Gargantuans as well. And Orks, definitely the big Stompa. All 40k.

All 40k except Sisters .

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.


40k's basic rules are easy to pick up, but the amount of special and unit-based rules is a lot larger than in every other game I play. Combined with the amount of different factions and units, it can take quite a bit of time before you know every single rule.

This is not something exclusive to 40k. The fact it's player 1 vs. player 2 means there WILL be a winner and a loser, it's just possible to have fun while losing. And even then 40k often falls short because you can lose without being able to do anything or even have a chance. On the contrary even when I've been wiped out in Warmachine on turn 2 or 3, I still feel like I had a chance and just need to improve my gameplay.

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.

There isn't much fun to getting stomped over and over and over. And yes, the rules describe a victor and loser.

If one player gets stomped all the time, you are doing something wrong. You have to work together to make sure everyone has a fun experience. Of course the rules have a winner and loser, because otherwise there would never be an end to the game and conclusion to the story.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.

There isn't much fun to getting stomped over and over and over. And yes, the rules describe a victor and loser.

If one player gets stomped all the time, you are doing something wrong. You have to work together to make sure everyone has a fun experience. Of course the rules have a winner and loser, because otherwise there would never be an end to the game and conclusion to the story.

My opponents will never work with me. It's an arms race to get the most lopsided tablings. Because tournaments.

WayneTheGame wrote:

This is not something exclusive to 40k. The fact it's player 1 vs. player 2 means there WILL be a winner and a loser, it's just possible to have fun while losing. And even then 40k often falls short because you can lose without being able to do anything or even have a chance. On the contrary even when I've been wiped out in Warmachine on turn 2 or 3, I still feel like I had a chance and just need to improve my gameplay.

Knowing what your opponents pieces can do is often confused with skill. Imagine turning up for a chess game and your opponent didn't have the same pieces as you.

Here's the kind of thing I will say to my opponent before a warmachine game:
1. This caster is Aurora, on her feat turn she moves about 20" and can unload 7 attacks at once, they do bonus damage if clockwork angel (who also move about 12") is next to you, this is almost always used to assassinate your caster
2. This is a corollary, it gives models near it about 3 extra focus a turn
3. This is a Prime Axiom it pulls people in and has a charge range of about 8" which becomes 10" if I cast magnetic hold and it becomes 12" if I shoot you with this little mech here.

Basically all the times in a game where I might surprise my opponent with a combo or a unit I will explain it before the game starts. Likewise I like to ask my opponents what spells they have that affect movement and what their feat does etc but really what I want to know is what sort of text book combos they are likely to do. Who wants to play a 1 hour game to learn something they could have been told in 10 seconds?

I just imagine how I would feel if I turned up for a chess game and my opponent was like 'actually my bishops are allowed to move over the top of my other pieces, so CHECKMATE'.

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.

There isn't much fun to getting stomped over and over and over. And yes, the rules describe a victor and loser.

If one player gets stomped all the time, you are doing something wrong. You have to work together to make sure everyone has a fun experience. Of course the rules have a winner and loser, because otherwise there would never be an end to the game and conclusion to the story.

My opponents will never work with me. It's an arms race to get the most lopsided tablings. Because tournaments.

I will never understand that kind of player. If you want to play competitively, there are so many great games around that are just perfect for that. 40k is not. Playing 40k to 'table the other player' is like playing D&D and trying to 'beat' your fellow players.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If one player gets stomped all the time, you are doing something wrong..

Yeah, playing with the wrong codex.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.

While that is the goal it isn't what really happens. Granted it IS how the game is marketed. Fun is usually dependent on who you played and what you played.

That being said the game has a winner and a loser. Its not a everybody gets a trophy an pat on the back game. Unless you are running a tournament for 8 year olds.

The only thing I see here in most its crying out loud, the codex gonna get released just handle it (period).

Just cause they got undercosted/overpowered units doesn´t mean every 1 gonna use those things and on second thought, dont you guys have a slight notion of strategy? play with your own units to counter the enemy weakenesses.

About the D weapons as far as I know they can be very very nasty I grant you the complain, but then the only decent "manouver" kind of shooting range those D have its the wraithknight with a 36" range, wraithguard its either flamer or 12" range which put you up in assault range, you got models to deal with those problems, be a better player and counter those things..

Do not forget that I beleive codexes are suffering a transition, necrons had all too easy around with decurions and mass slaughter stuff, now they have to be a bit smarter man and think on how to beat eldar, and despite there can be a balanced bettewn these 2 the other codexes will come up around on a future update. I just see people crying alot about it without knowing the future. and funnly to say 70% here who cry out about are space marine players who get a new codex every 3 years as either what they had the big dilehma of facing centurions at the time for being broken or grav guns, just look at them now, every 1 handle them.

I hardly play tournaments and I play 40k here and then, but then if I dont like on how things go around I just change system and go play something else. If a competitive player comes around and beat me, big deal I aint crying out all over it, its just a game for all purposes.


The only one quote Ill have to reply its one that started on this post as it says

" If there are any Eldar players out there with any remorse or guilt for the entire health of the game and 40k scene I implore you to do one of two things. Cheese the ever loving gak out of your codex and get yourself loathed and banned. Or don't play at all. Thanks. "

1st its a game

2nd its a game... I could keep this going but ill be a bit more creative on these answers

3rd feeling guilt and remorse? big LOL just keep on crying out as I then see those broken list combos of allies and all and I sit on my corner doing nothing.

4th you do not demand on how a players build their lists, could be completly broken or not, some persons here still enjoy to invision the "sense " of balance when playing a game and not all are the same, generalizing all eldar players are broken and idiots sorry but aint a very fair judgement whatsoever.

5th Why would I want to cheese the codex and ban myself on tournament? are you gonna pay my entrance, if so please do all Ill do as you ask, as I dont like to waste money myself going into tournaments just for the second after to kick myself off and much less losing a day of my life doing that crap where I had mentalized I had to lose a full day to get ready myself for that (changing schechules around home and all that deal and sorts... not to mention time waste painting models and such) I could be doing so many things over that wasted time and far more productive.

6th Dont play at all its a good course of action, still you do not demand if I should or I shouldn´t play a game.

7th Hyper competitive players will always find a way to bend rules and if needed will switch armies almost like you changing a shirt, if this time aint be the eldar next will be inquisition and so on.


Soo unless im mistaken and I needed a reply from yourself as I can think of that.

You got butt hurt of your local competitive players, about yourself cause you dont have eldar, that an army gonna cheese so much that gonna blow up your cheese lists, yes I beleive I know to whom I´m speaking and your the same that is putting a criticism when comes up, but then use your own broken combo formations on your own armies and for that matter you stay shut without saying a word and blinking innocently.

I have the right solution for you:
You dont like the game? quit yourself and go find other game system let others play their game and enjoy with watever they like as your not any sort of authority to ban some 1 from playing.
If you want a petition go send a big text to GW itself as part of a petition as players who normally dont like the current codex situation are normally more in the way of not playing this game anymore.(period).

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.

There isn't much fun to getting stomped over and over and over. And yes, the rules describe a victor and loser.

If one player gets stomped all the time, you are doing something wrong. You have to work together to make sure everyone has a fun experience. Of course the rules have a winner and loser, because otherwise there would never be an end to the game and conclusion to the story.

Don't you think rules that are $85 for the basics and $50+ for army lists should do a good job of making sure everybody has a fun experience without requiring this gentleman's agreement nonsense beforehand? I don't get how people are quick to defend the idea of charging the most out of everybody else for rules for a game which they claim is secondary to figures, and on top of that still requiring player intervention to fix any problems that can cause unfun games. It's a flaw of game design to have rules and then say "Well, you shouldn't use these expensive rules verbatim, you need to work things out with your opponent to determine what rules make for the most fun"

The 1st thing you have to mentalize is that players have fun just by seeing their armies and much efford put on game after alot time spent on painting those models.

The primary goal is to have fun with your army, if you die horribly vs 1 person doesnt mean all are the same. Playing to win its one thing, playing for fun its another, a smart commander on this game knows the balance to where he should know when to combine both.

And about paying stuff... its gw´s politics, they are producing game pieces for collectors, not for "gamers"

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such "

There's no such thing as a narrative game with "victory conditions". 40K IS competitive because there is a winner and loser.

And 40K is VERY easy to learn. There's not that many rules compared to actual war games.

There is no winner or loser, just people having fun. If both players have fun, than they will both have won.

There isn't much fun to getting stomped over and over and over. And yes, the rules describe a victor and loser.

If one player gets stomped all the time, you are doing something wrong. You have to work together to make sure everyone has a fun experience. Of course the rules have a winner and loser, because otherwise there would never be an end to the game and conclusion to the story.

Don't you think rules that are $85 for the basics and $50+ for army lists should do a good job of making sure everybody has a fun experience without requiring this gentleman's agreement nonsense beforehand? I don't get how people are quick to defend the idea of charging the most out of everybody else for rules for a game which they claim is secondary to figures, and on top of that still requiring player intervention to fix any problems that can cause unfun games. It's a flaw of game design to have rules and then say "Well, you shouldn't use these expensive rules verbatim, you need to work things out with your opponent to determine what rules make for the most fun"

To me it feels like such a hollow win if my opponent has to pick his worst units just to give me a chance. "Yep, I won. But only because my opponent tied both his hands behind his back and wore a blindfold."
I hate the gentleman's agreement argument. Winning isn't important to me, but if I wasn't trying to win at least a little we might as well just point our little guys at each other, make pew-pew noises and then argue about who killed who.

Galanur wrote:
And about paying stuff... its gw´s politics, they are producing game pieces for collectors, not for "gamers"

Then why do the rules cost so much?

you play with those models cause you want to, no 1 force you to do it.

The rules cost you much cause well, go to a printer company and print a codex with exactly same number of pages, paper quality, hardcover, UV varnish and all that stuff and tell me how that ´s gonna cost you, I can guarantee its gonna cost you almost twice of what you payed for that book.



About all these eldar stuff around, read this post, it can be quite fun reading and the all out so much drama for nothing people do these days anyway...



http://www.spikeybitsblog.com/2015/04/40k-meta-how-to-beat-the-new-eldar.html

Galanur wrote:
The rules cost you much cause well, go to a printer company and print a codex with exactly same number of pages, paper quality, hardcover, UV varnish and all that stuff and tell me how that ´s gonna cost you, I can guarantee its gonna cost you almost twice of what you payed for that book.

Now see what you have to pay per book if you can promise to sell a hundred thousand of those books. I'll give you a hint: It's not even a fraction.

Or what about the ibook/digital version? It costs almost as much as the hardback. What's your reasoning there?

And who the hell is asking for the book to be full of their glossed high definition advertisement pictures? That's being forced on us. Most people just want the rules.

Your argument is full of holes as well as being stupid. Bottom line is they are selling us the rules and they are doing it dearly. It's not unreasonable to expect them to meet a certain standard.

Man, these threads never get old... So many in all of the sub-forums. Best part is all of the discussions seem to involve the same people with the same arguments in another thread.

Does anybody know how much of the GW purchasing base competitive players actually have?

To be honest, if I played competitively in tournaments I would just spam OP Eldar units. Why would you not? You go to a tournament to win, play the most OP stuff.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

With the absurd range on the guns, destructive ability of the guns, and overall power level of the guns, the codex will be dangerous in anyone's hands. More than any other dex, considering the lack of bad units in the dex that a bad player would take.
The necron codex with the new formation is very strong, but is good in anyone's hand. You pretty much push the wraiths forward and hide the spyder.

Army lists tend to come in 2 varieties in most table top games. They either ask questions or answer questions. The ones that ask questions don't require nearly as much tactical work as the ones that answer questions. This is true in 40k, WMH, infinity, and most of the games I have seen.
The necron codex asks "Can you kill all my absurdly tough guys before they reach your lines?"
The SM codex asks "Can you stop my deathstar from destroying your army?"
The new Eldar codex asks "Can you withstand my shooting?"
It's easy to build this question from the army book compared to say, daemons, who are a strong army that requires a bit more work.

You make it sound so easy for someone to pick up and army and master the rules. I don't know if this is true for everyone.

It should take around 10 games. This is a pretty small learning curve compared to shooting games, fighting games, MOBAs, and other table tops.

Really? People need that many games to just master rules and a single army? Either that is a hyperbole or everyone I play with is incredibly smart. And personally I found Warmachine, FoW and Dystopian Wars all easier to learn than 40k. 40k takes more time to master due to the sheer amount of rules.

You are the first person I have ever heard to claim that.
I don't think you can claim that 10 games is a long time to master 40k's rules, then say it's a complex game, and then say WMH should take even less times. Those statements contradict each other.
In WMH, just knowing how to mitigate different feats, what pathfinder and eyeless sight can do, how weird CoC is, how annoying Menoth's Choir can be, and the crazyness of the teleport circle has can take a while to master. Learning how to utilize focus and mitigate fury and how each caster plays takes a very very long time.
You'll have a hard time asserting WMH is an easier game to master. The rules are clearer, but jacks alone can take more actions then most units do in 40k throughout the entire game.
Granted the 40k rules are written terribly. Flyers, FMC, and psykers are all confusing. But once you see it a few times it's easy to learn.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

If that requires some kind of evidence, assume I am just a boastful jerk, consider your own experiences and go from there. I would say it's only about 3 out of every 10 players I meet really know how to use the rules to their advantage, which would correspond with the upper end of a bell curve (it's actually being a little generous.)

I think you'd have to define using the rules to their advantage. 40k isn't an indepth system, and the majority of decisions are made in the list building stages. Anyone with an ability to work the most basic of statistics can see what units are good, make sure they have threat saturation, and go from there. I would say 3 in 10 don't have the ability to do this, and depending on your meta more or less may opt not to.
Figuring out how a deathstar operates, for example, is using the rules to help you, but anyone can do that given google and a short amount of time. There is little the enemy can stop it.

It takes more than good shooting to win games.

Akiasura wrote:
Making proper use of cover, target priority, choosing the right psychic powers, knowing the AV for enemy tanks, placing fortifications, making use of buildings, understanding terrain, knowing how to take and hold strategic points, making full use of cards in Maelstrom games, good deployments, knowing your opponent's armies and special rules, making effective use of psychic dice, etc. These are some of the the fundamentals I see too many people lacking in when the bring competitive lists. They count on some tricks working with their lists and don't know what to do when something doesn't go right.

Proper use of cover requires you to just be in cover. And don't bunch up if the enemy has blast templates.
Target priority is knowing what the weapons in the enemy list do and which units can hurt which model. There are few stats in this game and they are on a small scale, this doesn't take long to master either. The spammy nature of 40k means generally there are 1-3 main threats in an enemy army and you need to destroy it. With death stars it's even easier, just difficult to do anything. You have won or list in list building.
You don't get to chose psychic powers, they are randomly generated. If you mean disciplines, there are a few good ones (about 2-3) that are always amazing for any army and the rest are pretty bad.
The next 3 points are terrain which, again, mostly just require you to be in it.
Maelstrom cards are completely random and can not be planned for. Sometimes your enemy doesn't even have fliers for example. If your army is fast, and the best ones are, it's easier to grab them. This isn't infinity.
Good deployments are somewhat difficult to master and take a few games. Maybe 5-6. People who complain against drop pod armies usually are bad at deployments.
Psychic dice are also easy and requires a basic understanding of probability. If you only need 1-2 powers it becomes even easier. How the phase works is complicated but the system itself is easy. Defense is almost completely random and you usually have one spell you must stop, so you save it for that.

I somewhat agree with this, list building is the most important aspect of winning the game. It does take more than just a good list to win though, especially with more challenging armies such as DE or Orks. Good positioning and deployment are almost as important as a good list if you want to win, and having a good understanding of your opponent's army and setting target priorities (which goes far beyond 1-3 main threats) are also important. And of course a bit of luck.

Luck isn't really a skill, it's in every dice based game. Though you think it was the way some people roll...
Deployment is an issue for some armies, which I admitted. It's not terribly hard to master, and takes about 3-4 games before you are good at it. Maybe 1-2 more if drop pods are common in your area. I am speaking from an entirely new players perspective of course. 40k doesn't attract people who play other table tops in my experience.
Nothing is as important as a good list in 40k. Nothing. Just picking DE and Orks in this meta means you picked poorly. Which sucks, but that's the game we are playing now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
This is nothing complicated, like order of activation, when do I feat, how do I spread out my orders, memorizing an entire map, knowing how to jungle, or any other game I've played. 40k is a very tactically shallow game.

It is not the most tactical of games no, and it is also not designed to be. Yet it goes beyond just list building. If that were the case, we could just stick to mathhammer and produce results that are actually somewhat reliable.

Akiasura wrote:

The fact a good player doesn't know what a match up means is really just a statement of how tactically shallow 40k is. Any other competitive game, nearly every player would know what that term refers to.

This is where you stop making sense. 40k is not a competitive game and is not designed as such (The first pages of the rulebook clearly state it is a 'narrative game') 40k is a modelling hobby with attached tabletop RPG, not a video game MOBA with rankings, achievements etc.

The book can state what it wants. The game has been a tactical game from 3rd to 5th, and recently 40k has switched its tune in name only.
I challenge you to find a single roleplaying element in the game. Necromunda and other games have them, 40k does not.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
40k has worked that way across it's entire existence. Editions are defined by what was the most competitive list at the time, not who were the best players like you see in other games.
Again, you don't understand what a matchup is, so it's hard to have a discussion about how competitive something is when you don't have the jargon down.
Leaf blower, rhino rush, 5e grey knights, falcon spam, Siren bomb. The names of the lists have nicknames. In other games the players have nicknames, like JVM, M2K, Boss.
It shows you what players focus on when they talk about the game.

In Warmachine and FoW lists have names too. (Winter Guard deathstar anyone?)

Which is not the name of a list, it is the name of a unit. A unit that operates differently depending on if it is taken with butcher, Vlad, or another caster.
It takes about 15 points to make one, out of the 55+ points you get. So no, not a list.
That's like me saying Molik Missle is a list. It isn't, it's about 12 points in a unit taken with Makeda 2. I still have 40 points of list to make, and it will impact how I play heavily.
Tiers are an exception, but that's how they work.

I was thinking I'd be adding a new army to the legions I already have and was planning in Skitarii or Mechanicus. Seeing this, absolutely it's Eldar now.

Galanur wrote:
you play with those models cause you want to, no 1 force you to do it.

The rules cost you much cause well, go to a printer company and print a codex with exactly same number of pages, paper quality, hardcover, UV varnish and all that stuff and tell me how that ´s gonna cost you, I can guarantee its gonna cost you almost twice of what you payed for that book.



About all these eldar stuff around, read this post, it can be quite fun reading and the all out so much drama for nothing people do these days anyway...



http://www.spikeybitsblog.com/2015/04/40k-meta-how-to-beat-the-new-eldar.html

What that guide fails to take into account, is that unless you're playing someone who's running Iyanden (or whatever the wraith heavy list is) It's not just going to be D toting wraith units that you can overwhelm in numbers as it suggests, there's going to be scatbikes pumping out high strength; high volume attacks, Dark Reapers doing their thing, Dire Avengers or Guardians with their free heavy weapon platform or a number of other things that make blob units cry, which people have pointed out in the various Eldar threads, sure you can deal with Scatbike using av13+, sure you can deal with the D, but a reasonable Eldar list is going to be running both, for cheaper than you can run it's counters and with other shenanigans that Eldar enjoy.

And from what I've read that's what people have problems with, if you take a TAC list then you also factor in that you generally won't have enough of a specific fire power to deal with massed vehicles or blobs, but the Eldar codex is shaping up to give you the options to be able to deal with both at once which I personally find ludicrous. And again, this is only using the basic strategy of shoot the choppy and chop the shooty ( or in this case out shoot the shooty), without delving into any of the options within the codex that aren't going to negatively impact your list at all.

Which then leads into people saying they'd rather not play the codex,or asking the codex owner to severely gimp their army, etc etc. How does that seem fair for anyone?

Ill keep it simple, dont like the game system? its unfair? dont go to tournaments, keep it to closeby friends or change system, no 1 forced you to enter the game, oblige the rules as it is or dont play at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just laughed so hard at this post topic, ban eldar from all competitive lol

Necrons came out and broken no 1 complained, D weapons like all sorts can be solved, Im amazed how people are making an all out war on this without actually testing their lists and playing against it.

Or simply they dont have nothing else in life to keep em busy enough and have to sign these pathetic topic subjects.

Galanur wrote:
Ill keep it simple, dont like the game system? its unfair? dont go to tournaments, keep it to closeby friends or change system, no 1 forced you to enter the game, oblige the rules as it is or dont play at all.

I'll keep it simple, dont like the arguments in the forum thread? think they are wrong? dont go to the forum, talk only to your close friends, no 1 forced you to enter the internet, simply accept what everyone else is saying or dont talk at all.

Yeah. It's a stupid argument, and it doesn't sound any less stupid when you say it.

Galanur wrote:
Necrons came out and broken no 1 complained

Are you being funny? NO ONE COMPLAINED?

Galanur wrote:
Or simply they dont have nothing else in life to keep em busy enough and have to sign these pathetic topic subjects.

Well, you're in here wasting your time arguing against it. I wonder what that says about you.

 Purifier wrote:

Galanur wrote:
Ill keep it simple, dont like the game system? its unfair? dont go to tournaments, keep it to closeby friends or change system, no 1 forced you to enter the game, oblige the rules as it is or dont play at all.

I'll keep it simple, dont like the arguments in the forum thread? think they are wrong? dont go to the forum, talk only to your close friends, no 1 forced you to enter the internet, simply accept what everyone else is saying or dont talk at all.

Yeah. It's a stupid argument, and it doesn't sound any less stupid when you say it.

Galanur wrote:
Necrons came out and broken no 1 complained

Are you being funny? NO ONE COMPLAINED?

Galanur wrote:
Or simply they dont have nothing else in life to keep em busy enough and have to sign these pathetic topic subjects.

Well, you're in here wasting your time arguing against it. I wonder what that says about you.

Ahh you are that guy´s friend, another butt hurt, keep at it
I give you an A+ for trying to troll people lol
Anyway pretty much done in here

Galanur wrote:


I just laughed so hard at this post topic, ban eldar from all competitive lol

Necrons came out and broken no 1 complained, D weapons like all sorts can be solved, Im amazed how people are making an all out war on this without actually testing their lists and playing against it.

Or simply they dont have nothing else in life to keep em busy enough and have to sign these pathetic topic subjects.

Let me just hand wave your argument away with something similar

"I laugh so hard at these people defending the new codex, Necrons came out and people complained about how wraiths got a buff and how the rest of the codex also got a majority buff, if it was just these one dimensional list ideas, they could be solved, I'm amazed that people aren't more affronted (especially after deamonkin and Skitarri both came out relatively fine) without being able to infer about a units abilities from what has been shown.

Or simply they don't have anything else to keep them busy, and have to dismiss any negative claims as whining"

This is fun can we go again?

Edit because spelling

Galanur wrote:
Anyway pretty much done in here

Agreed. You haven't contributed anything worth reading since you came in.

 Purifier wrote:

Galanur wrote:
Necrons came out and broken no 1 complained

Are you being funny? NO ONE COMPLAINED?

Well yeah, people complained. Wraiths were going to single handedly win every single game they played in, no one could stop them. Decurion would mean that you can't kill a single Necron Warrior!

But then the book came out and people played against it and the complaining died down. Wraiths weren't tabling opponents. People could kill things just fine. The sky did not fall, there was no TPK.

Eldar are super scary now. I don't think that anyone is denying that. D Weapons on everything Wraith, buffs to everything not (except Storm Guardians, who continue to be kinda useless). But I don't think that will straight up end the game for people. If it does for you, well then, you're in the minority. I'll continue playing and not spent time bitching that I can spend thinking about strategems and modeling.

Requizen wrote:
not spent time bitching that I can spend thinking about strategems and modeling.

...and make it clear to people that you will not be bitching.

 Purifier wrote:

Requizen wrote:
not spent time bitching that I can spend thinking about strategems and modeling.

...and make it clear to people that you will not be bitching.

Just as you're making it clear to people that you think bitching is the best and in fact only course of action in your mind.