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.

 Brennonjw wrote:
Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.

Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"

3rd and 4th both had gw ran tournaments. It may currently not be a competitive game, certainly by 6th this was true, but it wasn't always the case. Many of us spent quite a bit of money on this game when the rules were tighter and the codexes weren't as far apart as they are now. Gw suddenly switched tracks and said a large part of my collection (nids and chaos marines) are useless garbage since my two common opponents are elder and necrons. Both have been playing their armies since 3rd and 5th respectively.

5th had way less flaws than the current edition. Most of the codexes could play, instead of 4 at the tournament level. Tanks were too strong, but that could have been easily fixed by adding the hp system with a few modifications.

7th requires me and my opponent to sit down and design our list together. I usually bring my entire collection for whatever army I'm playing and get it from my car after list design. Depending on the other player, this list design can take quite a while. I've never had to do this in the earlier editions (though I didn't play a lot of 6th), so yes, 7th is the most broken edition (also never played 2nd....I've heard good and bad from that edition though).

 krodarklorr wrote:
9. A dice based game where some times dice don't even need to be rolled (ala BS5 rerollable, 2++ rerollable, Grav with rerolls)

Dude, snake eyes still exist...

 Lobukia wrote:
So far all I see is complaints about community instead of genuine complaints about the game (which is not balanced).

If you are forced to bring your OP Crons to deal with OP Eldar, and its not tournament play... maybe its the culture of your weekly games that needs to shift to a narrative style or add some ground rules (2 flyer max, 1 wraithknight, etc... whatever is getting crazy)... most likely if youre frustrated so are other members of your group... so put on the big boy pants and make changes.

If a game can't let two people bring legal lists and have a good, relatively fair, game then it is a bad game.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
9. A dice based game where some times dice don't even need to be rolled (ala BS5 rerollable, 2++ rerollable, Grav with rerolls)

Dude, snake eyes still exist...

Yes, but that's a 1/36th chance of being rolled. The fact that you have such a low chance of failing something is borderline "why even roll?".

40k is awesome! The only problem is how terrible it is...

 krodarklorr wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
9. A dice based game where some times dice don't even need to be rolled (ala BS5 rerollable, 2++ rerollable, Grav with rerolls)

Dude, snake eyes still exist...

Yes, but that's a 1/36th chance of being rolled. The fact that you have such a low chance of failing something is borderline "why even roll?".

That number isn't 0, that's why you roll.

Akiasura wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.

Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"

3rd and 4th both had gw ran tournaments. It may currently not be a competitive game, certainly by 6th this was true, but it wasn't always the case. Many of us spent quite a bit of money on this game when the rules were tighter and the codexes weren't as far apart as they are now. Gw suddenly switched tracks and said a large part of my collection (nids and chaos marines) are useless garbage since my two common opponents are elder and necrons. Both have been playing their armies since 3rd and 5th respectively.

5th had way less flaws than the current edition. Most of the codexes could play, instead of 4 at the tournament level. Tanks were too strong, but that could have been easily fixed by adding the hp system with a few modifications.

7th requires me and my opponent to sit down and design our list together. I usually bring my entire collection for whatever army I'm playing and get it from my car after list design. Depending on the other player, this list design can take quite a while. I've never had to do this in the earlier editions (though I didn't play a lot of 6th), so yes, 7th is the most broken edition (also never played 2nd....I've heard good and bad from that edition though).

It's never truly been functional on a tournament level without people whining about cheese, just because tournaments were ran, doesn't mean that people didn't complain about the issues.

Can you really blame the game for mainly playing 2 people who play strong armies with updated codexes vs. a non updated codex? I mean, I play CSM, and I still manage to have fun, even when I play against 'Crons, SM, and Eldar.

Honestly, 5th only looks like it has less flaws. Seriously, look back and remember the things people complained about, the number or complaints and what they were about are remarkably similar to now-a-days. However, bringing up the fact that Tournaments are flawed only goes to prove my point that the game works better when you take it out of the tournament setting. I still stand by Nostalgia goggles being the reason that 7th is the "most broken edition. People said the same about 6th, and probably said the same about 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 5th.

Honestly I was never there but it sounds like there were brokenness and complaints about it in 5th, and quite a lot of that actually. It WAS the Matt Ward era, after all.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Honestly I was never there but it sounds like there were brokenness and complaints about it in 5th, and quite a lot of that actually. It WAS the Matt Ward era, after all.

But that could be chalked up to "rhinos are stupid hard to kill" and the like. As far as today goes, that's the complete opposite, which goes for all vehicles, MCs are too hard to kill (except for grav, which is a huge issue in itself), and of course sub-300 point GCs running around stomping things out of existence, massed S6/7 shooting wherever you look, even less restrictions over what you're allowed to bring. I would honestly much rather have 5th edition's problems than 7th's.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Honestly I was never there but it sounds like there were brokenness and complaints about it in 5th, and quite a lot of that actually. It WAS the Matt Ward era, after all.

Matt Ward pales compared to Phil Kelly.

5E had problems, some big ones, but the game as a whole did play much better.

Issues with vehicles weren't really even "Rhino's are too hard to kill", Vehicle lifespan overall was actually rather reasonable for probably the only time in 40k's existence, and nobody seemed to have a problem dealing with gun-tanks. The problem was that transports typically didn't care about glancing hits 5 of 6 times and even penetrating hits 50% of the time, while a gun-tank would find its role impacted by any result.

There were also issues with wound allocation and multi-wound units, as well as Kill Points (which still exist) and a couple other things. There were codex imbalances as there always have been. There was stupid Mat Ward stuff galore.


However, as a whole, the game was far more playable, particularly from a core rules standpoint. Aside from KP's (which are still an issue), the missions worked better, army construction was simpler and less absurd, and there was better (though far from perfect) balance.

5E was not by any means a perfect edition. In fact, I never thought I'd want to go back to 5E. However, with the game in the state it is now, I'd go back in a heartbeat.

Dude, 5 screens and no tl;dr summary? WTF?

I'd rate the various editions of 40k like this:
2E - 6
3E - 8
3.5E - 9
4E - 9
5E - 8
6E - 4
7E - 4

Compared to the mess that 2E was, 3E was a breath of fresh air, 3.5E filled in the blanks, and 4E was a fine cleanup of the rules.

5E started to see the Codices get out of control, but the game engine was fine.

6E saw GW catering to the worst segments of their fanbase, making the game ever more arcane and legalistic, while 7E doubled down on the suck, with even more tables and cross-references. It amazes me how GW has completely lost the plot of how their flagship game is supposed to play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, 5 screens and no tl;dr summary? WTF?

I'd rate the various editions of 40k like this:
2E - 6
3E - 8
3.5E - 9
4E - 9
5E - 8
6E - 4
7E - 4

Compared to the mess that 2E was, 3E was a breath of fresh air, 3.5E filled in the blanks, and 4E was a fine cleanup of the rules.

5E started to see the Codices get out of control, but the game engine was fine.

6E saw GW catering to the worst segments of their fanbase, making the game ever more arcane and legalistic, while 7E doubled down on the suck, with even more tables and cross-references. It amazes me how GW has completely lost the plot of how their flagship game is supposed to play.

Alright, I edited the OP. Should be better now.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, 5 screens and no tl;dr summary? WTF?

Alright, I edited the OP. Should be better now.

Thank you very, very much!

 krodarklorr wrote:

But if you want more game specific complaints, I'll address my feelings here.

1. Vehicles vs. MCs. This is a hot dabate, and we all know vehicles suck. Why? Because reasons.

So don't use vehicles vs MCs... if its as rock/paper/scissors as you think (and I don't think it is... too many units that are both rock and paper for the analogy to hold) stop putting your rock infront of paper without scissors nearby... kinda the point of any wargame anyway.

2. Grav is slowed.

use cover and bubble wrap, I'm sorry deploy and tactics now matter for MEQ forces.. and if MC are broken (your #1) then Grav is often the pill for that ailment... your second point is defeating your first here

3. Super Heavies and Gargantuans in regular games was going to far, especially when they're an auto-include for their points cost.

Again, sounds like a community issue, but other than a few standout units, SH and GC rarely make their points back... the standouts are just that painful to sour the whole barrel... make a league rule, no SH... ideally GW would think these things out better, but they didn't, so either rage or cope or correct

4. Stomps and Strength D in regular games is uncalled for.

Agreed, but I have much less issue with the stomps and D is much better than before

5. Some armies can't effectively deal with other armies. This game is rock/paper/scissors, but some armies are all paper with no scissors or rocks to deal with other things, and some armies are immune to everything but rock, which only a handful of armies have, while at the same time possessing the rock/paper/scissors to all other armies.

Examples? I can't think of any full dex this applies to. If youre talking about harlequins of Cult Mech or the like, its a mini dex, that's part and parcel

6. Some codexes were obviously negelected. (Orks, Dark Eldar, ext)

I'll concede that there are some codices that need light point adjustments, and I completely agree that balance with 40k gets a little pants on head at times, that's the flaw with the GW system. If its getting so bad that people are shelving armies, offer them a 10% point bonus so that everyone can have fun again

7. The game is bloated. Codexes, mini-codexes, micro-codexes, dataslates, supplements, allies, ext.

Agreed, no argument, its silly

8. Do I need to mention ally abuse?

Yes, most tournaments and most leagues limit a force to 2 or 3 formations. If you're playing 40k RAW, you're missing its point and intent (the BRB actually backs me up on this)

9. A dice based game where some times dice don't even need to be rolled (ala BS5 rerollable, 2++ rerollable, Grav with rerolls)

As long as fair points were paid and it can die (hint: everything can), I don't see the bother... and I'm amazed how often boxcars burns someone.

10. This is a turn based game where someone could effective give you no first turn (Null deployment alpha strike)

Again, example please. In the WAAC tournament scene this is almost unheard of... if its not happening there, then it really isn't an issue

11. This game is based off of what models need to sell, so that's what models are made good. That is a poor business decision on GW's part.

Right, so lists made of older units and not the new hotness dominate the tournament scene... oh wait, we've got Scout armies and Lictor-shame lists taking top spots... nuts

12. The larger the game, the more imbalanced it becomes. Most games have an activation phase for a reason. In 40k, you could lose half your army by going second, all because of a roll off.

Right, so going second is bad... I hope you're aware that most top players prefer going second. You'll find more complaints from veteran players about the other guy getting to go last instead of what you're advocating.

Need I say more?

Yes, I think you do

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

GAdvance wrote:

Salous wrote:
I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.

40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.

You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game

I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against

How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...

Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.

Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.

I agree that list building can mess up the balance in the game. Thats why I always speak with the people im playing against before hand. We tell each other our lists, and make changes to try and create a balanced game. No one spams units that the other can't kill. No one sneaks in flyers that the other can't counter, so on so forth. If more people do this and stop trying to sneak in lists then I believe people will stop complaining about unbalanced games.

I play against guard, marines, Chaos, orks, and admech mainly. I have beaten them all, I have lost to them all. 90% of the games come down to the final round to see who wins. The only game I played where one side was tabled or unable to win was where no one knew the other's list before the battle started.

It's most likely because I've been playing so long, and most of my meta started in 2nd-4th edition, but what you are describing is called list tailoring, or net decking. Such a term usually carries a very negative connotation in nearly every other game out there.
40k is the only game I've ever played that requires me to sit down for about 30-45 minutes and build a list and a series of house rules with my opponent with every game. I can play a game of warmachine in that time.

This is also assuming that you and your opponent agree on how strong every unit is. Tau, Eldar, and Necron seem to have issues with identifying what units are strong. Grey knights occasionally suffer from this problem as well. If my opponent doesn't think scat bikes are too bad, but wraithguard are broken, and I'm playing Chaos Marines, what do we do? What if he didn't bring the only units I can really handle with my list?

New players in ANY game should get stomped by more experienced gamers. Try playing Street fighter, Smash, Starcraft, or MvC3 against someone who has been playing seriously for a while. These games are balanced, and you will get rolled. The same is true in simpler games like chess as well. Only in 40k, where list selection and faction trump every other decision you may make, does this not occur. A new player who downloads a net list involving eldar will probably crush any force that isn't necron, eldar, admech, or formation space marines. It makes for a very weird play experience.

New players in games should not get stomped just because they're new... What you're not taking into account is any given player's intelligence, or their research/study of them game. It is quite easy to jump into a new game and do well. Some games are harder than others yes, but if someone jumps into a new game and can't hold their own, it more than likely comes down to their brain power or their lack of study of the game. And by study I don't mean googling the op lists. Target focus is the biggest thing in 40k. All you need to do is know the strength of a weapon vs the toughness/armor of the person you're shooting at. A little math and common sense tells you what to do to achieve the greatest chance at success.

@Salous, if you're saying that a new player who fully understands and knows all the rules shouldn't lose, I agree... but that's not going to happen often in 40k

 Lobukia wrote:
@Salous, if you're saying that a new player who fully understands and knows all the rules shouldn't lose, I agree... but that's not going to happen often in 40k

Not saying that a new player who knows the game should not lose. I'm saying that if a new player can win at a game does not mean that a game is bad. Alot of variables go into deciding who wins or loses a game of 40k. But just because you're new does not mean that you should lose.

Salous wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
@Salous, if you're saying that a new player who fully understands and knows all the rules shouldn't lose, I agree... but that's not going to happen often in 40k

Not saying that a new player who knows the game should not lose. I'm saying that if a new player can win at a game does not mean that a game is bad. Alot of variables go into deciding who wins or loses a game of 40k. But just because you're new does not mean that you should lose.

Understood and agree

Why competitive play is so important? Because it benefits the casual players too. The competitive scene is a huge driving factor for achieving good balance. WMH is not perfect, but PP are trying their best by publishing errata and changing things, based on what is happening in the tournaments.

In a game that is geared for competitive play I don't have to indulge in long pre-game discussions to ensure that both of us have a chance. I just show up with my list(s) or make my list based on the missions and my opponent's faction, as is the standart in Malifaux, and I am ready to roll.

@ Krodarklorr

CSM can have good matches against necrons. I have played a few 1500-2k point games against CSM and CSM has won most of them. The key is to check yourself in casual games and not spam your list with your best units. Don't play decurion unless your opponent asks for it, don't spam jetbikes, wraiths, or ghost arks. By doing this you will find that most armies are just fine at fighting necrons.

Necrons have 3 main OP units to some armies.

Jetbikes counter most cheap infantry hordes. Guard, orks, tau, Ad mech, and a few others have a very hard time against them because a group of 6 can wipe out full squads of infantry, regardless of cover, every turn.

Wraiths are just hard as feth to kill unless you build a list tailored to fight them, even then they have a good chance at saving most wounds. Most people either waste their whole army shooting at them and get angry when they don't die, or they just run away from them, neither works very well. The best way to counter them is to tarpit them with a unit and forget about them, kill everything else, get the objectives, and stop trying to kill them.

Ghost arks are what I feel are the most op units in the necron codex. They are the best troop transport in the game. Instead of hiding warriors in cover to survive, you have full movement of the board with them, being able to kill/wound any unit in the game without having to worry about them being shot up. Its hard to kill, unless you bring the right weapons. But the greatest value it has to me is being able to spawn in more warriors. I have tarpited more units with warriors than I have with any other unit just because they can keep coming back to life.

Anyways, moral of the story is, limit yourself in your lists, make the game more challenging by taking weaker units. You will have more fun because you have to try to win, your opponent will have more fun because they feel like they have a chance to win. And again, talking to your opponent ahead of time, telling them whats in your list allows them to bring whats needed to stand up to Necrons and have a good match. Necrons are not in end all be all in 40k, the weakest armies can beat them.

There's an element here I fundamentally don't understand; the need to let people know and consequently try and bring them down with you.

At one point, I was a 'competitive' Warcraft III player. As such, I participated in forums, conducted replay analysis for the community, tried to make my way into small tournaments, etc. I involved myself and invested my time in involving others. As the game progressed it began to interest me less. As a result I now longer reached out to the community and they didn't reach back. Eventually this fade out was complete and I haven't played the game in years despite how very much I enjoyed it.

For some reason, I see posts like this in regards to Warhammer all the time. People arguing about moot points ( "40k isn't balanced!" - nobody ever said it was). Others making harsh rationalizations, some debating the points of community. My question is much more basic than all of that:

Why are you here?

If you're quitting, congratulations! Find another game and enjoy spending your money there. Sincerely. It's bothersome that you tell me you loved this game, and then attempt to sow dissent into the community as you try and "depart." And I do mean that in quotations, because quite frankly there's a number of people here posting their hatred for the game and yet they have posts here IN THE THOUSANDS.

They never really depart. They just complain, construct posts complaining, and justify their wish to depart but they just don't.

So, again, why are you here?

Go enjoy yourselves you bloody masochists.

 Brennonjw wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.

Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"

3rd and 4th both had gw ran tournaments. It may currently not be a competitive game, certainly by 6th this was true, but it wasn't always the case. Many of us spent quite a bit of money on this game when the rules were tighter and the codexes weren't as far apart as they are now. Gw suddenly switched tracks and said a large part of my collection (nids and chaos marines) are useless garbage since my two common opponents are elder and necrons. Both have been playing their armies since 3rd and 5th respectively.

5th had way less flaws than the current edition. Most of the codexes could play, instead of 4 at the tournament level. Tanks were too strong, but that could have been easily fixed by adding the hp system with a few modifications.

7th requires me and my opponent to sit down and design our list together. I usually bring my entire collection for whatever army I'm playing and get it from my car after list design. Depending on the other player, this list design can take quite a while. I've never had to do this in the earlier editions (though I didn't play a lot of 6th), so yes, 7th is the most broken edition (also never played 2nd....I've heard good and bad from that edition though).

It's never truly been functional on a tournament level without people whining about cheese, just because tournaments were ran, doesn't mean that people didn't complain about the issues.

You're treating complaining as a binary problem, and its not. Relatively speaking, there has never been more complaining about cheese in the game as there is now. The biggest complaints you have seen is when 6th dropped, and when 3rd dropped. I believe the latter is because each of those edition changes represented a massive shift in the tone of the game, while other edition changes didn't change nearly as much.

Anyway, that wasn't the point. You claimed that the game was not a competitive game. My point is that for a large portion of its lifetime, it was and did just fine. People complain about competitive games all the time. Check out the Riot forums. I have a nephew who is a "challenger" (he assures me this is a big deal), and the forum posts he has shown me is....toxic. Yeah, let's stop with toxic. It doesn't mean the game isn't competitive or somewhat balanced.

 Brennonjw wrote:

Can you really blame the game for mainly playing 2 people who play strong armies with updated codexes vs. a non updated codex? I mean, I play CSM, and I still manage to have fun, even when I play against 'Crons, SM, and Eldar.

If your opponent tones his list down and you bring the good stuff, sure this works. If he/she only owns the better models, didn't bring the bad ones, or doesn't want to list tailor with you...no, you won't.

 Brennonjw wrote:

Honestly, 5th only looks like it has less flaws. Seriously, look back and remember the things people complained about, the number or complaints and what they were about are remarkably similar to now-a-days. However, bringing up the fact that Tournaments are flawed only goes to prove my point that the game works better when you take it out of the tournament setting. I still stand by Nostalgia goggles being the reason that 7th is the "most broken edition. People said the same about 6th, and probably said the same about 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 5th.

No, they didn't. Most of the editions had a few things that were strong, but nothing like now. The way allies work, and Lords of war/formations, have allowed for power combos that have never existed in the game before. In previous editions, long fangs were considered really good. Now they are mediocre at best, completely outclassed by death stars (deathstars back then were a re-rollable 4++ btw, not a 2++). It's practically the same unit as its always been, divination actually makes it better, but what is considered powerful has shifted so drastically that its just not that great.
5th has less flaws then the game does now. We can compare the strongest units from each edition, or look at the common complaints, but the truth is in 5th most of the dexes could play at the top table. Some were stronger, sure, but everyone could play. Right now its 4 armies total.



@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.

 Cieged wrote:
And I do mean that in quotations, because quite frankly there's a number of people here posting their hatred for the game and yet they have posts here IN THE THOUSANDS.

Breaking up is hard to do

Akiasura wrote:


@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.

You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.

 Cieged wrote:
There's an element here I fundamentally don't understand; the need to let people know and consequently try and bring them down with you.

At one point, I was a 'competitive' Warcraft III player. As such, I participated in forums, conducted replay analysis for the community, tried to make my way into small tournaments, etc. I involved myself and invested my time in involving others. As the game progressed it began to interest me less. As a result I now longer reached out to the community and they didn't reach back. Eventually this fade out was complete and I haven't played the game in years despite how very much I enjoyed it.

For some reason, I see posts like this in regards to Warhammer all the time. People arguing about moot points ( "40k isn't balanced!" - nobody ever said it was). Others making harsh rationalizations, some debating the points of community. My question is much more basic than all of that:

Why are you here?

If you're quitting, congratulations! Find another game and enjoy spending your money there. Sincerely. It's bothersome that you tell me you loved this game, and then attempt to sow dissent into the community as you try and "depart." And I do mean that in quotations, because quite frankly there's a number of people here posting their hatred for the game and yet they have posts here IN THE THOUSANDS.

They never really depart. They just complain, construct posts complaining, and justify their wish to depart but they just don't.

So, again, why are you here?

Go enjoy yourselves you bloody masochists.

Many people like the game universe, many people like the models, some people play older editions, and many people still like other various portions of the hobby and game, and places like this is where they voice their concerns and discuss their issues with the game and the issues they perceive it to have.

 Cieged wrote:
Why are you here?

I still play 40k, just got through a game with the guys over the weekend.

However, me playing an occasional game of 40k every few months is a far cry from me playing a few games of 40k every week.

Back then, I played smallish games when the 40k ruleset was a lot cleaner and simpler. The game didn't bog under a mountain of 6E/7E crap like Snap Shots or Challenges or closest first or several flavors of "Special" rules for every freakin' thing that slows the game down. It played a lot faster, getting in more turns or larger games in the same amount of time.

I would prefer something simpler and cleaner, more akin to 3E/4E than the mess that is 6E/7E.

@Akiasura: But here's the thing, why is new people losing a good thing? All that does is make things seem hopeless for the new player and discourage them from going further.

I gave it a 2 on the assumption we're talking 7th Ed. The game is awful. Sixth left a rotten taste in my mouth and seventh made me get rid of everything (except demons that have value in Fantasy). It got a 2 because there are worse games. But its glory days are behind it.

Cieged , it is rather simple. Nostalgia is a harsh mistress. Although I have moved to greener pastures, I return here from time to time to see if the things have gotten better. I would LOVE to be able to embrace 40K again. Sadly the indications are pointing in the opposite direction- things are getting even worse.

Usually. I refrain from posting here, but this topic is something I could relate to and have something to say, even if it isn't much.