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 think with any hobby, the pressure and competition should be with yourself: to get better at things.

To see models assembled and some attempt at paint on them is fine. Pro-painted is not necessary and people are surprisingly nervous of being judged which people should not be doing unless they are not terribly nice human beings.

Knowing your rules makes games quick and a joy to play.

Gaining from someone's willingness to part from their property at a reduced price I think makes anyone buying happy. It is another interesting skill set stripping and disassembly/repair of models, though I have seen armies fielded in the colors of multiple armies since they could not be bothered to change them.

I am scared with the huge amount of tweaks I have had to do for my army: make a specially kitted out Sgt here, magnet up and paint sponsons / turret guns, kitbash turrrets with twin assault cannons, more Sgts with combi-weapons (magnets? haven't done that yet... use them in Sternguard otherwise?), magnets on vehicles for that one or two stormbolters and maybe a crack missile? More freaking painting... set too high a bar what I originally painted, so nothing cranks out fast.

So yeah, we all have our "first world problems" so all I can say is do all you can to enjoy your games.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Or just play a game with a tight ruleset that caters to all types of gamers. There's a fallacy that poorly written rulesets such as 40K promote casual gaming, when actually it makes it a lot harder to arrange a game due to all of the different variables that have to be negotiated. My go-to game is Infinity. One question is all it takes - what mission shall we play? Due to being such a well written ruleset it lends itself very well to narrative and casual gaming at the same time as having a thriving tournament scene which allows players from all around the world to turn up to a tournament [Interplanetario] and throw down knowing only the missions [and points level but unless otherwise stated it's always 300 points]. When I used to play 40k it required discussion after discussion and negotiation of house rules. Even after 3 editions of superheavies being in the core game some people still think there is a discussion to be had about whether the other person should get to use their expensive toys or not, and I've even seen arguments on batreps about whether FW should be included, something that I thought had been laid to bed years ago. 40K has never been about producing a balanced ruleset, it has always been a vehicle to sell models. Rogue Trader even required a Games Master. People really need to stop trying to make 40K something it's not and has never been.

That's all well and good but I don't enjoy Infinity. So please have fun with your game but don't attempt to dictate to me how I should enjoy my hobby or my games.

40K has always poorly handled the first turn. There should be a mechanic that reduces the amount of firepower that can be dished out. Either way, terrain has to be a factor and you really should have places to conceal and hide from big guns without that first turn player having to move to get hits.

 jeff white wrote:
Reading thru this thread it is clear that a return to RPG narrative elements whether in the form of missions or pregame discourse, a return to sportsmanship and army comp rules with no named characters, and generally not treating 40k as Magic the collectible card game with 3d cards are all aspects of the fix. Finer grained terrain and cover rules, these would help as well. But the big issue seems to be people focused on the deck building phase as just that, a way to use rare special tokens to exploit rules and tip the balance of the game in their favor instead of collecting cool stuff and letting the game playnout on the table. So now it comes down to how many cards can i play before my opponent so that I can stop him playing any at all. Fist turn alpha strike entire armies now death stars... Justyuck.
OP if you opponent is of this mindset, then either ask him to change his mind or IMO drop the dude and spend your time developing other relationships. MtG reminds me of cat piss and stale socks. I can't stand it and the fact that it has infected this venerable wargame. Insidious as it is, this mindset seems to have infected your opponent as well. So one question, does the dude play MtG?

No he doesnt play MtG but I do lol I can't just drop him either, hes my best friend hahaha thanks for the advice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Murenius wrote:
Could you maybe post your full list? This would make it easier to see if your army composition is a problem or not. Your experience seems to be shared by quite a few players (*cough* me *cough*) who started this edition by rebuilding their old lists. You have to play your army to its strengths in 8th edition (e.g. running characters with auras behind a few units. Or, Wave Serpent spam ).

Yes the next game I play I will post my list and board setup (picture). The Eldar list I ran was garbage... I may have mentioned it.. I told him I wante to play test some Harlequins for a commission job im doing... well my buddy took advantage knowing I cant transport them, as I dont have a harlequin vehicle, took advantage.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Farseer_V2 wrote:
If I may - OP - what would you like to get out of the hobby? I ask because I am a very competitive gamer (which despite the Casual At All Costing in this thread isn't a bad thing) and it sounds like that's also what your regular opponent is interested in. The question that I think would be most valuable to find the answer to is what drives you to play 40k? Are you a competitive guy, are you interested in tournaments and making 'hard' lists? Or do you have another driver for your hobby?

Once we know the answer to that it will be easier to offer reasonable advice that isn't condescending (i.e. that you're bad) or preachy (i.e. anyone interested in competitive play is contributing to the degradation of the hobby).

Or just play a game with a tight ruleset that caters to all types of gamers. There's a fallacy that poorly written rulesets such as 40K promote casual gaming, when actually it makes it a lot harder to arrange a game due to all of the different variables that have to be negotiated. My go-to game is Infinity. One question is all it takes - what mission shall we play? Due to being such a well written ruleset it lends itself very well to narrative and casual gaming at the same time as having a thriving tournament scene which allows players from all around the world to turn up to a tournament [Interplanetario] and throw down knowing only the missions [and points level but unless otherwise stated it's always 300 points]. When I used to play 40k it required discussion after discussion and negotiation of house rules. Even after 3 editions of superheavies being in the core game some people still think there is a discussion to be had about whether the other person should get to use their expensive toys or not, and I've even seen arguments on batreps about whether FW should be included, something that I thought had been laid to bed years ago. 40K has never been about producing a balanced ruleset, it has always been a vehicle to sell models. Rogue Trader even required a Games Master. People really need to stop trying to make 40K something it's not and has never been.

The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes." The only competing game that comes close IMO and is still a miniatures game is Flames of War with its innumerable different supplement rulebooks. I've tried other games, and with Warmahordes it was like

"OK, I think I want to play as many of those big dragon monsters as possible."

"Well, then you're kind of locked into this specific caster, and you need this this and this other supporting unit in your army, then you can field 4 big monsters of your choice in a standard competitive game."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

As others have said, this is a common problem with the IGOUGO. Unless there is a lot of terrain, or some way for the 2nd player to retaliate (like in Infinity), the player who goes first can usually cripple their opponent, removing huge chunks of their army before they can be used.

That said, things are not as bad as they where in 7th (AKA, insta-delete turn 1)

A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Also trying to get my hands on a Defiler and/or a Predator. I used a Landraider in one of our games but man its a point sink, it is durable though.

As it stands now, and has been since I have played- Land Raiders are a point sink for what they do.

I say this, but oddly enough I've had fantastic luck with the Repulsor. But it's honestly the only vehicle I've ever had where I need a checklist of all the weapons on it, so I don't forget to shoot one.

 bullyboy wrote:
40K has always poorly handled the first turn. There should be a mechanic that reduces the amount of firepower that can be dished out.

This has been touched on a few times in this thread, but wouldn't this just transfer the "alpha strike" potential to the player going second, since they'd get the first turn of firing at full effect? Seems to me that wouldn't address the "problem" insofar as some people see it, but rather just shift it somewhere else.

 Kawauso wrote:
This has been touched on a few times in this thread, but wouldn't this just transfer the "alpha strike" potential to the player going second, since they'd get the first turn of firing at full effect? Seems to me that wouldn't address the "problem" insofar as some people see it, but rather just shift it somewhere else.

It would. I always eat the dust if my opponent gets First Turn. I've made a habit of playing rather defensively and keeping my heavy-hitters tucked into good cover, or investing heavily in things that can deep strike later in the game.

Every new edition of a GW game is the same, a different (or often the same) group of players come to every single thread spreading their hate over and over again.

This thread is a perfect example: "I'm having trouble winning a 40k game, please help."

"40k sucks play a different game". Awesome advice guys, very useful.

We get it, you don't like igoyougo, or you think 40k can't be played competitively, or this edition sucks, or whatever your concern is. Certainly worthy of a topic somewhere on the 40k forum, and shockingly there are several such topics already open like that (go to the 30 page thread on why igougo sucks and 40k needs alternating activations). Or, even better play Infinity or Flames of War or Warmachine or Bolt Action or the litany of other tabletop games and enjoy them on the appropriate forums. But this topic is someone asking for advice on 40k specifically so your comments are off topic and completely unnecessary.

For new players and casual players alpha strike and 1st turn in general is a huge barrier. There are quite a few ways to combat this, many of which have been mentioned in between the 40k moaners. Furthermore for ANY game there is always going to be an issue when a casual player like the OP goes up against someone else going balls to the wall hardcore. That is universal. Don't try telling this guy he is losing because 40k sucks, regardless of whether 40k sucks its just not true.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kawauso wrote:
This has been touched on a few times in this thread, but wouldn't this just transfer the "alpha strike" potential to the player going second, since they'd get the first turn of firing at full effect? Seems to me that wouldn't address the "problem" insofar as some people see it, but rather just shift it somewhere else.

It would. I always eat the dust if my opponent gets First Turn. I've made a habit of playing rather defensively and keeping my heavy-hitters tucked into good cover, or investing heavily in things that can deep strike later in the game.

Troop transports are the key. If they have to devote a lot of long ranged resources to alpha the transports, there isn't much left to kill the guys they were carrying.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

1) Starfleet Battles. (And yes, some ships do get variable loadouts. Orion Pirates are the prime example of this)
2) Brikwars.

tripchimeras wrote:
Every new edition of a GW game is the same, a different (or often the same) group of players come to every single thread spreading their hate over and over again.

This thread is a perfect example: "I'm having trouble winning a 40k game, please help."

"40k sucks play a different game". Awesome advice guys, very useful.

We get it, you don't like igoyougo, or you think 40k can't be played competitively, or this edition sucks, or whatever your concern is. Certainly worthy of a topic somewhere on the 40k forum, and shockingly there are several such topics already open like that (go to the 30 page thread on why igougo sucks and 40k needs alternating activations). Or, even better play Infinity or Flames of War or Warmachine or Bolt Action or the litany of other tabletop games and enjoy them on the appropriate forums. But this topic is someone asking for advice on 40k specifically so your comments are off topic and completely unnecessary.

For new players and casual players alpha strike and 1st turn in general is a huge barrier. There are quite a few ways to combat this, many of which have been mentioned in between the 40k moaners. Furthermore for ANY game there is always going to be an issue when a casual player like the OP goes up against someone else going balls to the wall hardcore. That is universal. Don't try telling this guy he is losing because 40k sucks, regardless of whether 40k sucks its just not true.

If exalting did anything, I would give you an exalt. Instead, have a hearty thumbs up:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

1) Starfleet Battles. (And yes, some ships do get variable loadouts. Orion Pirates are the prime example of this)
2) Brikwars.

1) Must be a super popular game since it has both balance and options for everything! I'll get to playing it right now, as soon as I find the options for superheavy tanks... (it's gotta have them somewhere, it has so many options!)

2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This is the first time I've heard of Brikwars.

Okay, Wal-Mart. Your toy section is about to get PILLAGED.

Also, I'm working with a couple of friends to draft up a Skirmish game using 3.75 inch action figures and a D10 system. 'Small' games require the player to use one figure (and Marauderinc.com has a sweet-ass 'Task Force' figure line where you can pretty much custom-order your idea 'GI Joe'). My concept involves 3 play modes- player vs. player, player(s) vs. Zombies (controlled by LOS and 'noise' mechanic similar to Zombicide), player(s) vs. enemy goon squad (controlled by another player, with randomly generated loadouts for each goon).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This is the first time I've heard of Brikwars.

Okay, Wal-Mart. Your toy section is about to get PILLAGED.

Also, I'm working with a couple of friends to draft up a Skirmish game using 3.75 inch action figures and a D10 system. 'Small' games require the player to use one figure (and Marauderinc.com has a sweet-ass 'Task Force' figure line where you can pretty much custom-order your idea 'GI Joe'). My concept involves 3 play modes- player vs. player, player(s) vs. Zombies (controlled by LOS and 'noise' mechanic similar to Zombicide), player(s) vs. enemy goon squad (controlled by another player, with randomly generated loadouts for each goon).

See, that sounds like a fun game, but not one I'd play because it's just not at the scale I'm interested in. Most games have that problem for me - they don't scratch my itch. I tried to play Warmachine a while ago, for example, and for a game called Warmachine, the war machines were not very good.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, that sounds like a fun game, but not one I'd play because it's just not at the scale I'm interested in. Most games have that problem for me - they don't scratch my itch. I tried to play Warmachine a while ago, for example, and for a game called Warmachine, the war machines were not very good.

I understand.

Also, while some folks have complained that 'telling the guy to try a different game is bad advice', TBH... sometimes that's the best advice.

I had a lot of annoyances trying to play Warhammer Fantasy. It simply was not my game. I did not like what Mordheim had to offer, either (wasn't a fan of any of the units). But someone said, "It might not be your cup of tea, try Frostgrave"

...and here I am, commissioning my warband for that game. Because, really- I love the fact that it says something like, "You need a wizard and something to represent his hired goons"... and you can literally use any models you want. Get the AOS models, get some cheap Reaper minis, hell- one guy used various Dark Eldar models. And it's an AWESOME game, the hard part is getting proper terrain.

The coolest I saw was a multi-level terrain thing this guy built that was like, 4 feet tall and as long as a 40k table. With a working waterfall, fog, bubbling slime, and various lights.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A) Tight rules and options are not mutually exclusive.
B) GW has increasingly moved towards less options, without tightening their rules. Want a Primaris Captain with a Power Axe? Get out of here, WAAC scum!

1) I have never seen proof of this.

2) 40k's options are still ridiculously prolific than most other games. I can't think of any other game that lets an army composed purely of superheavy land battleships engage an army purely composed of medieval knights wielding swords.

1) Starfleet Battles. (And yes, some ships do get variable loadouts. Orion Pirates are the prime example of this)
2) Brikwars.

1) Must be a super popular game since it has both balance and options for everything! I'll get to playing it right now, as soon as I find the options for superheavy tanks... (it's gotta have them somewhere, it has so many options!)

2) Brikwars is actually pretty neat, but I did say most, not all. You can find any 'bring your own model' wargame and yes of course that will allow you to do whatever you want. But they're not known for their in-depth lore or worldbuilding, usually.

1) I chose SFB because it doesn't revolve around Special Characters, and has at least a few weapons that correlate with 40k weapons (Hydran Fusion weapons are basically Melta, Phaser-Gs are basically Scatter. Lasers). It's interesting though IMO because it does illustrate a difference in how 40k and other games do "options." Meaning, while 40k has a lot of different units, most of those units more or less only do "one thing." Meaning the decision-making skews more on the list-building side compared to the play side.

The best example of this is the Leman Russ. In previous editions, the Vanquisher was an upgrade to the standard Russ, and could choose regular shots or Vanquisher rounds. Now, it's one or the other. Imagine a game where a Russ had the choice of HE rounds, sabots, smoke shells, or beehive rounds. Or if the game had the general mechanics to allow for assorted "unconventional" uses of equipment (Ex: Using Helfrost weapons to freeze rivers for vehicle crossings). Alas.

Warmahordes does have some extra "options" in-game (Power Attacks, Focus Boosting), but the unit options are set in stone. Starfleet Battles is interesting (read: Simulationist and obtuse as hell), because there are an insane amount of options in-game. Your ship can deploy Shuttles to act as phaser vectors, load them up with explosives, load them up with comm-jamming equipment to act as "Wild Weasels", or load them up with Marines to act as boarding troops, or researching space monsters in scenarios that call for it. This is done in-game rather than at ship construction, but you're eating into the same resource pool. Plasma Torpedoes can be fired as is, or "dead loaded" with decoy rounds, split early as a "plasma shotgun", or focused in "beam" form so they act as a direct-fire rather than as a counter. You get a wide variety of options in-game and they're not always simple mathhammer optimization (like, say, Sternguard ammo).

2) Brikwars is perhaps the most literal example for a game where land-ships can fight medieval knights with swords. Especially if you put wheels on said Pirate Ships. The funniest thing in the older version though was the rules for mass-drivers. Though not necessarily effective, there are few things funnier than winning grapple rolls against your opponent, carrying off his models, then usin them as trebuchet ammo.

The new terrain rules and true los including all parts of the model/unit have made standard mid-sized and small terrain features (95% of them) close to useless to hide behind. The suggestion to make "smart use of terrain" falls apart when a tank can shoot your 30-man squad if it's antenna has line of sight to the top of the banner of at least one model. Even a single window or crack in the wall of the first floor makes a ruin completely unable to block line of sight because some part of model will be able to "see" through it no matter how you try.

I suggest to not rely on terrain and los vs alpha-strikes and 1-st turn - terrain is not consistent and will almost never work if the opponent can move a model and shoot (and he most often can). Unless you bring your own terrain that's specifically designed to block los - like a huge square building you're gona place in the middle of the board...but than the opponent might not like it at all cause he's spent a lot of time and money to build a list that's designed to work in the current terrain-less enviroment and shoot you off the board. Just focus on listbuilding yourself - bring more resilient stuff, less units to go first or more reserves. Dish what doesn't work in this enviroment if you want to win. The game is designed in a way that you have to counter it on the listbuilding step and not when the game has allready started. Tailor your lists. Call it reconnaisance if you please.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
IGOUGO is the problem and won't ever be fixed.

I second this,
As an experiment run the same lists with your friend but instead of the typical 'turn by turn' structure, do a 'unit by unit' based structure. During the shooting phase, for example, you select a Unit and then your opponent will select a Unit to shoot with. Some minor tweaking might be needed to make it flow the best, but the Rules are not that poorly written that you will have trouble playing with 'unit by unit' format over a turn by turn one. It will also tell you exactly what sort of friend you are playing with, for if he demands to go back to the old format and refuses to even entertain what is likely to be a more fair fight....

 koooaei wrote:
The new terrain rules and true los including all parts of the model/unit have made standard mid-sized and small terrain features (95% of them) close to useless to hide behind. The suggestion to make "smart use of terrain" falls apart when a tank can shoot your 30-man squad if it's antenna has line of sight to the top of the banner of at least one model. Even a single window or crack in the wall of the first floor makes a ruin completely unable to block line of sight because some part of model will be able to "see" through it no matter how you try.

I suggest to not rely on terrain and los vs alpha-strikes and 1-st turn - terrain is not consistent and will almost never work if the opponent can move a model and shoot (and he most often can). Unless you bring your own terrain that's specifically designed to block los - like a huge square building you're gona place in the middle of the board...but than the opponent might not like it at all cause he's spent a lot of time and money to build a list that's designed to work in the current terrain-less enviroment and shoot you off the board. Just focus on listbuilding yourself - bring more resilient stuff, less units to go first or more reserves. Dish what doesn't work in this enviroment if you want to win. The game is designed in a way that you have to counter it on the listbuilding step and not when the game has allready started. Tailor your lists. Call it reconnaisance if you please.

Geederps dropped the ball on terrain this edition.

The FLG guys have stated multiple times that LOS blocking terrain is essential for 8th games to function correctly.

 koooaei wrote:
The new terrain rules and true los including all parts of the model/unit have made standard mid-sized and small terrain features (95% of them) close to useless to hide behind. The suggestion to make "smart use of terrain" falls apart when a tank can shoot your 30-man squad if it's antenna has line of sight to the top of the banner of at least one model. Even a single window or crack in the wall of the first floor makes a ruin completely unable to block line of sight because some part of model will be able to "see" through it no matter how you try.

I suggest to not rely on terrain and los vs alpha-strikes and 1-st turn - terrain is not consistent and will almost never work if the opponent can move a model and shoot (and he most often can). Unless you bring your own terrain that's specifically designed to block los - like a huge square building you're gona place in the middle of the board...but than the opponent might not like it at all cause he's spent a lot of time and money to build a list that's designed to work in the current terrain-less enviroment and shoot you off the board. Just focus on listbuilding yourself - bring more resilient stuff, less units to go first or more reserves. Dish what doesn't work in this enviroment if you want to win. The game is designed in a way that you have to counter it on the listbuilding step and not when the game has allready started. Tailor your lists. Call it reconnaisance if you please.

I've noticed that players which build their list around really narrow builds/strategies can get really forceful or whiney if you try to use terrain or deployments that negate their chosen playstyle.

Expect complaints of 'not official', 'unfair' or even 'cheating' and in the future either attempts to 'ban' certain terrain pieces or the creation of their own crazy terrain pieces (think the whfb dwarf gunline player who tries to put a 24 inch by 9 inch impassable lavafield that doesn't block line of sight in front of where he will place his army).

Others have made this point already, but it can not be stressed enough: use LOS-blocking terrain, in different sizes, and lots of it. If you don't have some: build or buy it. Some soda/beer cans, cleaned and appropriately painted (some basic colour, and a metal drybrush looks good already) are an easy starting point. Google "easy tabletop terrain 40K" for a ton of more inspiration.

If you prefer to use GW scenery - which often does not block LOS completely - talk to your opponent and decide to treat certain walls as "these block LOS completely from this to this point, even if there are windows/doors/cracks in it". There are some weird abstractions in the ruleset, you can add another.

To lessen the impact of shooting in the first turns, you could use the "Dawn Raid" rule (page 194).

My final suggestion would be to just plan your list and ingame tactics as if you would always go second, with going first being your plan B. That way you never get caught on the wrong foot, and can also take full advantage of all other advice given so far.

To complete your LOS blocking terrain, you might try somerhing from Bolt Action: decide that thungs such as woods, ruined little houses and so on are simply no see through scenery. For exemple, we assume that the smoke over the ruins hibders visibility on the target, and that dense woods would not allow for more than a glimpse at an ennemy unit -which is not enough to pick a target through it.

Otherwise, once again, i can tell you that this game is far better designed ruleswise than 40k. Apart from flanking (which isn't amlowed anymore in some missions) therz are very few ways to break the game, but most lists you can come up with could prove rewzrding if played correctly, not only over bloated with op stuff ones.

However, it does not habe the rich setting of 40k. So playing a narrative campaign in Bolt Action feels so so, whereas it's great fun in 40k, and can -as precised above- be way better balanced than the original ruleset alone thanks to heavy houserules you are sure to take in account.

What i mean is, through that exemple, that suggesting that one change the games he plays is a good advice, because not every game is enjoyable the same way.

the_scotsman wrote:


The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

Infinity has a tight ruleset that is generally considered to be well balanced, and has a huge amount of options in army composition. It lends itself extremely well to competitive gaming, and also casual or narrative gaming. They've just released a narrative campaign pack for the Manga models, and have done the same in the past, and have an excellent tournament scene.

I've found that I've always been in with a chance at winning an Infinity game, whereas with 40K a lot of the time I might as well have given up after turn 1.

In terms of list building, one guy did an experiment with Infinity where a very experienced player was given an entirely random list with a lot of seeming redundancies and a less experienced player was allowed to customise a list. The experienced player won every time. It really isn't the list, it's how you play it and your skill level.

I'm using Infinity as an example of how a tight ruleset is more conducive to all styles of gaming. There doesn't have to be a trade-off at all.

In regards to the 'GTFO 40Kisawesomeandtherearenoproblems crowd, a lot of the advice for the OP has been to use lots of additional house rules, mostly to get around the very poorly written terrain rules, or to beg the opponent not to use certain models. It seems far more reasonable to suggest trying out a different game to me.

With little work TRUE LOS terrain can be made.
I made a factory that is basically a 1' cube with details all over it to look nice but there is no looking through it.
Boarding up ruin windows may have to be an added "detail" to ruins.
I was already working on a staggered forest line (with all gaps filled between) to plunk down through the middle of tree area terrain so it can at least be a true blocker.
May look a bit silly no matter what I do but it would be nice to have a forest block line of sight again.

I do admit, the terrain rules are the worst they have ever been compared to prior editions... why?
Why change what they got right, while changing what they got very wrong and make no attempt at the I-get-first-turn-I-win which has been a glaring issue in all editions?
They borrowed I feel a fair bit from Bolt Action (or the other way around?) so why not go with something similar to what makes that game great?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

Infinity has a tight ruleset that is generally considered to be well balanced, and has a huge amount of options in army composition. It lends itself extremely well to competitive gaming, and also casual or narrative gaming. They've just released a narrative campaign pack for the Manga models, and have done the same in the past, and have an excellent tournament scene.

I've found that I've always been in with a chance at winning an Infinity game, whereas with 40K a lot of the time I might as well have given up after turn 1.

In terms of list building, one guy did an experiment with Infinity where a very experienced player was given an entirely random list with a lot of seeming redundancies and a less experienced player was allowed to customise a list. The experienced player won every time. It really isn't the list, it's how you play it and your skill level.

I'm using Infinity as an example of how a tight ruleset is more conducive to all styles of gaming. There doesn't have to be a trade-off at all.

In regards to the 'GTFO 40Kisawesomeandtherearenoproblems crowd, a lot of the advice for the OP has been to use lots of additional house rules, mostly to get around the very poorly written terrain rules, or to beg the opponent not to use certain models. It seems far more reasonable to suggest trying out a different game to me.

Your experience of Infinity is different than mine. I tried to get into it, but there weren't enough options for army composition (though the scale I want to play at is probably different, and so this isn't a criticism of the game). Besides that, however:

The local community was awful. We tried to do a narrative campaign, and it fell apart. People argued about the rules, and fought about them. They argued about facing, about declaring camo tokens. We had a gentleman deploy a Katyusha drone launcher thingy inside of a building with no doors and windows, firing out with either a guided missile or even just suffering the -6, but they were invulnerable - except for grenades. People started doing the same thing with grenades, despite their short range, deploying inside of buildings with no doors or windows and the like. People nitpicked the gak out of the rules, and rules discussions took a good 30 minutes per dispute because of the sheer staggering complexity of the game. People brought lists that were 17 dudes and a huge Dog Soldier, and just spammed orders on the dog soldier while the others stood around and had a cigarette.

Honestly it was the worst "casual" gaming experience I've ever had, 40k included.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


The problem is that what you interpret as "poorly written" others interpret as "highly customizable".

40k has a staggering number of options and little levers you can tweak between the kits and the rules to make your army feel like "your dudes."

With a tight ruleset you have to reduce the number of options and variables available to keep balance good. and typically that comes with far less options for the kits (most WMH kits are monopose or slightly customizable still). This isn't a bad thing, but pretending there's no trade-off is disingenuous. Also, I don't know about your own experience, but in mine, going to a tighter, competitive ruleset actively requires you to think in a tighter, competitive mindset, or you'll get stomped much harder than you did in 40k. A random, throw stuff together list played casually in WMH will lose faster and with much less of a chance of winning because the rules are built with much more synergy and power multiplication between units played in the correct configurations.

Infinity has a tight ruleset that is generally considered to be well balanced, and has a huge amount of options in army composition. It lends itself extremely well to competitive gaming, and also casual or narrative gaming. They've just released a narrative campaign pack for the Manga models, and have done the same in the past, and have an excellent tournament scene.

I've found that I've always been in with a chance at winning an Infinity game, whereas with 40K a lot of the time I might as well have given up after turn 1.

In terms of list building, one guy did an experiment with Infinity where a very experienced player was given an entirely random list with a lot of seeming redundancies and a less experienced player was allowed to customise a list. The experienced player won every time. It really isn't the list, it's how you play it and your skill level.

I'm using Infinity as an example of how a tight ruleset is more conducive to all styles of gaming. There doesn't have to be a trade-off at all.

In regards to the 'GTFO 40Kisawesomeandtherearenoproblems crowd, a lot of the advice for the OP has been to use lots of additional house rules, mostly to get around the very poorly written terrain rules, or to beg the opponent not to use certain models. It seems far more reasonable to suggest trying out a different game to me.

No, most of the advice has been to play 8th as it was intended, a lot of terrain, use transports and line of sight to your advantage and understanding the rules to their fullest. Also that if you want to play casually maybe your opponent should as well or vise versa. No different then infinity. All the above example with infinity shows is that list building is not an essential part of the game, and infinity is not what I would call particularly customizabel either. Infinity also is a skirmish game with a small number of models, a significantly smaller miniature scale, a massive learning curve, and for a significant portion of geographic locations a non existent player base. The presumption that whatever other game people happen to play is identical to 40k except better is hilarious. If you are playing 40k: quality miniatures, massive scale, customization, lore, and list building are almost certainly priorities for you. 90% of the games people mention as alternatives forego most or all of these features. I play Malifaux, but despite it being an objectively more balanced game I am not running around screaming it as an alternative, because it shares essentially nothing in common with 40k's strengths and fills a completely different niche. Kings of War is one of the most balanced games I have ever played, but I also find it to be one of the most boring. Balance is not a substitution for "good". Sometimes Balance can actually be a negative to a certain extent. But all of that is besides the point.

Literally no one on this thread has said that 40k is awesome and has no problems. What we are saying is that you are in a 40k forum responding to a 40k question, saying that people shouldn't play 40k and should play infinity instead... Huge difference. Start a thread about why you think infinity is better then 40k, or a thread about the litany of issues with 8th edition and ways they can be solved, but this thread is about solutioning for a specific players issues. Solutions, may I add, that very much exist within the scope of the core rules if you are willing to take advantage of them. While technically "play a different game" may be a solution it is a bit baffling that so many people who supposedly have no interest in 40k and don't play it spend so much time ON A 40K FORUM.