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.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

 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.

Well, maybe if you had taught me MtG then I wouldn't hate it so much.
Very cool reply.
I imagine you are a great person to hang out with.

If your friend is taking advantage of your lack of transports it still seems that he is in need of an attitude correction.
If my friend had an army at some disadvantage the last thing I would want to do is punish him for it...
So my advice remains unchanged regardless.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


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.

In regards to your first point, taking vanilla Pan O as an example, there are 61 different unit types. Within each unit types there are sometimes as many as 9 different loadouts. Every option is viable depending on the mission or playstyle. If that's not enough options then I don't know what to say

LoF markings to indicate facing are non-negotiable. They are explicitly mentioned in the ITS rules for both tournaments and leagues. There shouldn't be any argument there.

Not exactly sure what you mean about declaring camo tokens but the rules state that the location of figures with hidden deployment must be written down [most people take a pic on their phone]. There is scope to lie about which camo marker represents which model but that's cheating, nothing to do with ambiguities in the rules.

Firing out buildings with no LoS is contentious, however if someone wants to waste all those orders spec firing or targeting one model and using guided ammunition then I am very happy for them to do so. I'll just play the mission and win every time.

Using cheerleaders and spamming orders on one model? Yep, that's the game. Dogface won't be scoring an objectives for you though. When link teams get factored in that sort of stuff happens less often.

Finally, I wouldn't consider a narrative campaign with multiple participants 'casual'. It sounds like poor planning on the part of the organiser to me by not ensuring the rules were adhered to or made explicit.

In terms of the complexity of the game, I agree, it is complex. It's why I love it - I've been playing for years and feel like I've only scratched the surface. I agree that it can be intimidating to a new player but CB have produced lots of excellent avenues into the game for new players, such as the two starter boxes and differentiating between basic and advanced rules. There's also lots of fan made stuff out there - GMG's Recon rules are also great.

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience, I would suggest trying the game again with a more experienced organiser - maybe contact your local Warcor to arrange an intro game.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


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.

In regards to your first point, taking vanilla Pan O as an example, there are 61 different unit types. Within each unit types there are sometimes as many as 9 different loadouts. Every option is viable depending on the mission or playstyle. If that's not enough options then I don't know what to say

LoF markings to indicate facing are non-negotiable. They are explicitly mentioned in the ITS rules for both tournaments and leagues. There shouldn't be any argument there.

Not exactly sure what you mean about declaring camo tokens but the rules state that the location of figures with hidden deployment must be written down [most people take a pic on their phone]. There is scope to lie about which camo marker represents which model but that's cheating, nothing to do with ambiguities in the rules.

Firing out buildings with no LoS is contentious, however if someone wants to waste all those orders spec firing or targeting one model and using guided ammunition then I am very happy for them to do so. I'll just play the mission and win every time.

Using cheerleaders and spamming orders on one model? Yep, that's the game. Dogface won't be scoring an objectives for you though. When link teams get factored in that sort of stuff happens less often.

Finally, I wouldn't consider a narrative campaign with multiple participants 'casual'. It sounds like poor planning on the part of the organiser to me by not ensuring the rules were adhered to or made explicit.

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience, I would suggest trying the game again with a more experienced organiser - maybe contact your local Warcor to arrange an intro game.

It's not really "not enough" options, but rather "not the right" options. I'm a treadhead and like tanks, and while heavy armoured vehicles exist, apparently tanks do not.

It wasn't the LOF markers that people argued about, it was whether or not something was in a facing. People would measure with the side of their tape measure, then argue about it, then inevitably the model gets bumped and EVERYONE is grumpy.

You're right, it's cheating, but you can't know if they're cheating or not without starting an argument, and then ... well here we go. yay arguments!

"Just play the mission" is excellent advice to win but I want to have fun, and don't really care about winning. What's not fun is having indestructible enemy units just kill mine because 'reasons' that essentially boil down to 'over-complex ruleset'.

Again, dogface not getting objectives is neat and all and will lose the mission, but it doesn't reduce the frustration of playing against that army. It feels silly, unrealistic, and pedantic, especially if you on the other side are trying to build a realistic TO&E instead of a derpy gimmick list.

And if you don't consider a narrative campaign "casual gaming" I don't know what to tell you. A narrative campaign is literally the most casual thing I can think of - bring realistic, story-friendly stuff, write awesome fluff, etc.

And I left the area, club, and game, long ago. I just wanted to point out that bad, frustrating, frankly silly interactions happen regardless of the specific game you're playing, and infinity is not a panacea that somehow cures jerkassery.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And I left the area, club, and game, long ago. I just wanted to point out that bad, frustrating, frankly silly interactions happen regardless of the specific game you're playing, and infinity is not a panacea that somehow cures jerkassery.

I didn't say it did. The problems you mentioned were with the players, not the rules. You started playing a game that didn't have tanks despite liking tanks and required a focus on missions whereas your idea of fun is rolling lots of dice and hoping for above average rolls of 3s and 4s; then didn't like it.

infinity isn't for everyone, but, like lots of other games, is worth a try if 40K isn't doing what you want it to.

I wonder if it would be possible to mod Gorkamorka rules to allow tanks in that game. It would be amusing to have a game where your "Warband" was a single tank crew.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And I left the area, club, and game, long ago. I just wanted to point out that bad, frustrating, frankly silly interactions happen regardless of the specific game you're playing, and infinity is not a panacea that somehow cures jerkassery.

I didn't say it did. The problems you mentioned were with the players, not the rules. You started playing a game that didn't have tanks despite liking tanks and required a focus on missions whereas your idea of fun is rolling lots of dice and hoping for above average rolls of 3s and 4s; then didn't like it.

infinity isn't for everyone, but, like lots of other games, is worth a try if 40K isn't doing what you want it to.

But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

But OP's friend isn't a jerk.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

No, the problem is the rules. His friend is following the rules, unless I've missed something?

tripchimeras wrote:
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.

My friends and I have played a multitude of games through the decades and tried rewriting our own rules many times.
We have found one thing in common almost every time: you make a perfectly balanced game that is utterly fair and it somehow all devolves into being boring.
It was kinda the litmus test for these new rules when I started hearing comments about being boring BUT people are playing in droves compared to before.
We found that if you add one special rule that borders on "broken" for each army to give it flavor, you can then have a (largely) balanced game with each army trying to leverage their advantageous rule.
It was when 6th and 7th drove home the "mix anything you want" which seemed to kill the advantages and disadvantages inherent with each army.

I am slowly getting a handle on what works and what does not with these new rules and was surprised just how much moral kills models.
Concentrated fire or really nasty alpha-strikes are what appear to pay interest (through failed moral rolls) in the game.
Unless you are Orks with gangs of 30 within 6" of each other or a Warboss...

I would say this game has better playability now than I have seen in ALL prior editions.
Maybe it just plain suits me, it is not all roses but the main bones of it work quite well and I have had faster and more enjoyable games than I have had with 40k in decades.
Other people's results may vary.

The other games mentioned I find are extremely good but are so different (Malifaux and Infinity) that I do not consider them a competing product all that much.
We have reasonable representation of those other guys at my FLGS and they seem to be outnumbering Warmahordes by a fair margin.
40k prior to 8th was some 8 guys.
NOW, we are looking at 16(ish) and was just talking to 2 new guys wanting to get into it last week.

I think those fine arguments of "play a real game not 40k" are pretty invalid now.
It is the hot product lately, has good starting packs, plenty of old and new player support and a company that appears to care again.
Find your fun with this game.
If you don't now, you never will.

Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

But OP's friend isn't a jerk.

Someone who doesn't care if their friend is having fun or not is a jerk. If they won't tone down their list or army swap or whatever, that's on them.

tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem ITT isn't 40k, it's his friend.

A jerk is a jerk whether you swap games or not, sadly. That's my point.

No, the problem is the rules. His friend is following the rules, unless I've missed something?

You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. So the suggestion is play another one which has better written rules and greater balance, rather than imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table. Which is the point I was originally making.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. So the suggestion is play another one which has better written rules and greater balance, rather than imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table. Which is the point I was originally making.

Isn't "changing the game" actually a more extreme change than "imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table?"

That's like "I need to defend my house." "You should use a shotgun!" "NO SHOTGUNS ARE BAD! Bazookas are much more what you're looking for!"

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You can follow the rules and still be a jerk, just like in Infinity or any other game I've ever played.

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. So the suggestion is play another one which has better written rules and greater balance, rather than imposing your own house rules or telling the other person what they can or cannot put on the table. Which is the point I was originally making.

That is your interpretation of his problem though. What countless people have noted is that his fundamental problem is that he is not using enough terrain (considering you are suggesting Infinity as a solution, you of all people should know that is not going to change with a game switch). Furthermore, there are a litany of strategic solutions to his problem that come from experience and army design. Guess what? If he played a game of infinity against you tomorrow he would likely lose just as bad, for the same identical reasons of not yet having the toolset to deal with your strategies. You are taking your opinion of 40k's weaknesses and attributing them, imo wrongly, to the issues he is experiencing himself. Moreover, all of his problems currently would be felt as much if not moreso if he was facing a similar situation in Infinity, a game requiring even more terrain then 40k, and with a much steeper learning curve and player skill divide.

tripchimeras wrote:

That is your interpretation of his problem though. What countless people have noted is that his fundamental problem is that he is not using enough terrain (considering you are suggesting Infinity as a solution, you of all people should know that is not going to change with a game switch). Furthermore, there are a litany of strategic solutions to his problem that come from experience and army design. Guess what? If he played a game of infinity against you tomorrow he would likely lose just as bad, for the same identical reasons of not yet having the toolset to deal with your strategies. You are taking your opinion of 40k's weaknesses and attributing them, imo wrongly, to the issues he is experiencing himself. Moreover, all of his problems currently would be felt as much if not moreso if he was facing a similar situation in Infinity, a game requiring even more terrain then 40k, and with a much steeper learning curve and player skill divide.

Terrain is included in the rules for Infinity. There are two pages dedicated to explaining how to set up terrain [including example pictures] so that it is conducive to a good gaming experience for both players. The starter boxes include the correct amount of terrain for the size of the mat provided, and show you how to set it up for each mission. No need to house rule; it's all there for you as it has been clearly thought out. Is the same true of 40K?

In addition, should the OP switch to playing Infinity he wouldn't lose against me because the game is inherently imbalanced, or have already lost at the list making stage. I've lost to less experienced players before when I got caught up killing stuff rather than focussing on objectives, or my big bad unit went down to an unlucky crit. Which is as it should be. He would at least be in with a chance, and wouldn't have to ask his opponent not to use certain models or apply house rules.

Anyway, there are plenty of other games out there besides Infinity that might provide what the OP is looking for. In X-Wing you all have access to the same units; this also has a flourishing tournament and casual scene. Bushido, KoW, Guildball, etc. etc. etc. Or he could just keep getting frustrated playing a game that doesn't meet his requirements. Definition of madness and all that.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Terrain is included in the rules for Infinity. There are two pages dedicated to explaining how to set up terrain [including example pictures] so that it is conducive to a good gaming experience for both players. The starter boxes include the correct amount of terrain for the size of the mat provided, and show you how to set it up for each mission. No need to house rule; it's all there for you as it has been clearly thought out. Is the same true of 40K?

Funny that.
It used to be insanely detailed of quantity and board sections and rolling for it.
We may still be in the beta stage as pointed out...

In addition, should the OP switch to playing Infinity he wouldn't lose against me because the game is inherently imbalanced, or have already lost at the list making stage.

I do agree that the risk is much higher as you increase the variety of units and their capabilities like taking a knife to a gun-fight.
Exclusively squad skirmish battles mitigate that hugely.
It also inherently can be quite limiting depending on the size of game people may prefer.

I've lost to less experienced players before when I got caught up killing stuff rather than focusing on objectives, or my big bad unit went down to an unlucky crit.

Pretty sure I have experienced the same thing playing 40k recently.

Which is as it should be.

That is indicating a game system that leans on a fair bit of random results which is the great leveling mechanic of experienced players vs. new.

He would at least be in with a chance, and wouldn't have to ask his opponent not to use certain models or apply house rules.

I am pretty sure the game is limited to a squad so you do not have the complexity of vehicles or aircraft.

Anyway, there are plenty of other games out there besides Infinity that might provide what the OP is looking for. In X-Wing you all have access to the same units; this also has a flourishing tournament and casual scene. Bushido, KoW, Guildball, etc. etc. etc.

Plus if one MUST play GW there is Armageddon Shadow War or the announced Necromunda or the old but good Spacehulk.

Or he could just keep getting frustrated playing a game that doesn't meet his requirements.

Which it has not been determined if this is a problem that would be common to any game or not.

Definition of madness and all that.

Oddly, with all the dice rolling you could potentially play the same thing and get a different result.

Yes, one can play Infinity.
It looks good on paper.
Is a science fiction setting which is cool.
I played it twice and went "Meh".
For MANY others it is an awesome game.
I played some 20 odd games of Malifaux and it is a really different game.
I like it to a point but the models I hugely enjoy.
40k for big stomping carnage games is my go-to all the more now.
Through 6th and 7th I leaned on SW Armada and SW X-wing to get me through those "hard times".
That is not the case now.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Except no-one is being a jerk here. The looseness of the rules and the lack of balance is ruining the OPs enjoyment of the game. S

What does lack of balance have to do with it?

OP says himself that the army he took in the most recent game was weak and he knew it. If you're going to deliberately take a weak army then you need to arrange this with your opponent or expect to get pounded.

It doesn't matter how balanced the game is - every combination of list building choices won't be equally powerful. If you deliberately take a sub optimal combination then what do you expect to happen?

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Hey all, i'm just wondering if anyone is running into the same problem I'm having. I play a certain friend of mine who always runs Ultramarines or GK/Ultramarines. i set up all the table, the terrain, etc at my house... and I usually like to play around with different lists. Total setup takes around a hour to a hour and a half.

The last game we played.... his first turn with Ultramarines, he took out, a squad of 5 Dark Reapers, and 2 Night Spinners, a squad of 5 harlequin and a couple guardian with a Heavy platform..... I called the game after that...

The game previous to that ... I used deathguard... and I called the game at the end of his second turn... again he started this game first as well.

Is first turn in this game that huge... or are Ultramarines and GK that good?

He also uses Battlescribe putting his lists together. Does this calculate points accurately?

Thanks all... after these last few games i honestly dont see the point playing against his armies anymore.. The setup time.. along with 0 fun of getting my butt kicked doesnt seem worth it.

I don't have these issues since my group went back to 3rd Edition. Alpha strike in 3rd was nowhere NEAR as vicious as it is now.

Don't listen to all the people talking about "different mindsets" and "find another partner".


#1: try to write decent lists. Even in fluff bunny land, you can write a list that does not outright suck. The list you mentioned, by your own admission, was far from the best list you could've written that day.

#2: try to understand the power level of your opponent's list: is it really tournament level, or not - show the list on dakka, ask around

#3: if it happens that his list is (close to) a 100% optimized tournament build, you have three options:

#A: play 100% optimized with him

#B: play with a points handicap reflecting the relative optimization of your lists

#C: play narrative games with him if he's interested in that

1) play with enough terrain
2) run wave serpents

job done.

I would put good money on there being advanced terrain rules in Chapter Approved.

GK first strike is brutal. I play someone who runs 2-3 stormravens, Draigo, the new character with the hammer, a librarian and 5-6 assassins. Draigo gets buffed and is in your face turn 1 or 2 (2++ save if power goes off), plus the assassins are all over you.

You're getting smitted (smitten?) by 3-4 psychers, plus all the other shenanigans. The list is VERY hard to beat. You can't shoot the characters as he puts one of those Cullexus (sp) assassins out front, so it's 6+ to hit no matter what.

Even though you can usually kill the assassins, some of them explode like a vehicle and do more damage.

It's a very competitive list.

EDIT: I meant to add that with ravens and deep strike, LOS isn't too much of a help. I tend to cluster my units around Bobby G or whoever is giving rerolls.

 3orangewhips wrote:
GK first strike is brutal. I play someone who runs 2-3 stormravens, Draigo, the new character with the hammer, a librarian and 5-6 assassins. Draigo gets buffed and is in your face turn 1 or 2 (2++ save if power goes off), plus the assassins are all over you.

You're getting smitted (smitten?) by 3-4 psychers, plus all the other shenanigans. The list is VERY hard to beat. You can't shoot the characters as he puts one of those Cullexus (sp) assassins out front, so it's 6+ to hit no matter what.

Even though you can usually kill the assassins, some of them explode like a vehicle and do more damage.

It's a very competitive list.

EDIT: I meant to add that with ravens and deep strike, LOS isn't too much of a help. I tend to cluster my units around Bobby G or whoever is giving rerolls.

sounds super swingy to me. Definitely something some lists will have no answers to, my current primaris themed list would have none for example. Sounds like something a jerkoff would bring to his local store to "pwn noobs" then get delusional and take it to a tournament only to get 20-0'd in 3 of the 5 game.

Edit: That's the thing about ALL wargames, if you want to be a jerk you always can be. If you are in a casual environment and know the people around you aren't playing hardcore you can pretty easily make a game no fun for anyone. Doesn't necessarily the game as a whole is broken, just means you found the weakness in your local scene and decided you care so little about having fun and so much about winning that you are willing to spend 300-400 bucks to wreck it.

From another eldar player that plays unorthodox list, losing will happen a lot. Eldar do require a lot of fines and require the right list to counter an opponent. There is no one size fits all list for eldar without going tourny ready.

 jeff white wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

 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.

Well, maybe if you had taught me MtG then I wouldn't hate it so much.
Very cool reply.
I imagine you are a great person to hang out with.

If your friend is taking advantage of your lack of transports it still seems that he is in need of an attitude correction.
If my friend had an army at some disadvantage the last thing I would want to do is punish him for it...
So my advice remains unchanged regardless.

Oh MtG is a great time! i don't play at stores though just with family. We all home brew decks, lots of tribal stuff. We would have complete tribal games like, vampires, soldiers, treefolk (me), goblins, etc...

I started making meta decks to get into the LGS competitive scene but there were basically no LGS's in my area that ran modern. I started bringing those decks... like Tron to the table with my family... and it didnt work out well.... for them... so I stopped.

I think its just a phase for him right now. I think he think he will pick up the wins while he can, because he knows that if I keep getting my butt kicked... I will make a rough list and try to run him over lol.

Something similar happened in 7th edition... I was making "fun" lists especially with 1k Sons. My plan wasn't on winning just having fun with psychic powers etc... once I got Magnus he started playing much harder and took the games more seriously.. even though I wouldn't care. He started getting a bit cocky with his lists... so i brought out Eldar... ya he got wrecked.

I played him one game with 7th edition Eldar..... and he acts like we played 10 and I would crush him everytime... I think that's where all this is coming from lol.

To me it sounds like you're not using enough terrain or you're not taking advantage of terrain to ensure you have partial or full coverage to avoid first turn barrages...

 3orangewhips wrote:
GK first strike is brutal. I play someone who runs 2-3 stormravens, Draigo, the new character with the hammer, a librarian and 5-6 assassins. Draigo gets buffed and is in your face turn 1 or 2 (2++ save if power goes off), plus the assassins are all over you.

You're getting smitted (smitten?) by 3-4 psychers, plus all the other shenanigans. The list is VERY hard to beat. You can't shoot the characters as he puts one of those Cullexus (sp) assassins out front, so it's 6+ to hit no matter what.

Even though you can usually kill the assassins, some of them explode like a vehicle and do more damage.

It's a very competitive list.

EDIT: I meant to add that with ravens and deep strike, LOS isn't too much of a help. I tend to cluster my units around Bobby G or whoever is giving rerolls.

I don't think the above list has many space marine counters, aside from scout spam to deny the DS. Doesn't do crap to the ravens. And we use lots of LOS blocking terrain.