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.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Karol:

I think you may have misunderstood my suggestion, that he need not buy new models (right away, at least) while he tries out a few other armies to see what fits for him.

If you aren’t in a tournament, and particularly if you play at “home”, your enjoyment of the game is up to you and your opponent. So work together to have fun.

I know someone is going to have to change list which more or less means buying new stuff. What I do question is though, is why someone who is already buying his second army, suppose to buy a third one, because people don't like playing against the second batch of stuff he bought. I know that the question was asked by someone who, or atleast I think so my english is way away from good, is not the knight player. I don't know how it can be fixed, within the rules it can't. Socialy there are probably one a milion ways to fix it, but I don't think that telling someone to buy/play something else is a good way to start. I doubt he bought 4 knights and his models/list and he hates them, maybe then making him not play it could be an option, other wise I have no idea how to fix the sitation. In game play or rules there is nothing that could work. And social stuff, I have no opinion on, as in general I don't get the intereactions.

If you can in 40K. That should wreck knights and you can drink sweet salty tears as you remove a scrub from your group.

yes. clearly. Dude starts one army and doesn't like it. changes the list and does not quit. Likes the new army and has success with it, time to drive him away. buying two armies, and not being able to play, will him a ton of things for the future.

justin12270 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Sounds to me like there are no innocent players here, refusing to play someone's army seems kinda lame, on the other hand it sounds like your knight player is pretty classless as well

its not so much that we want to refuse its just nothing changes in his list. so we play the same exact game each time we play

If his list doesnt change, there is something you can do about it. Use different tactics, add terrain, change up deployment, better yet use the open war card deck. There are many many curve balls that he will have to adapt to.

What kind of lists are the Tau player running? it seems to me that a fairly decent list should handle knights just fine, esp if there is no guard present.

Packing up if you lose half of your army is the problem.

If I packed up when I lost half of my army, I'd have half as many wins.

 Elbows wrote:
It's a game, not a job. If you're not having fun (for whatever reason) you're not obliged to play. You can be adults about it and have a conversation, and just let him know that your games with his Knight army are boring or unfulfilling, etc. I stopped playing 40K maybe 4-5 months ago because I played five or six games in a row and simply wasn't enjoying myself. Solution? I'm taking a break or stopping altogether. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

My group had a slow but similar power creep, and the codex/model/army power creep is something I'm not interested in matching/going along with. I started being able to use fewer and fewer of my units (i.e. to not get wiped off the table my codex was being shrunk by necessity).

So I switched over to other hobby projects/games, etc. Regardless of what people say on the internet, any game is an agreement between players. It's a cooperative instance where two people are trying to enjoy a game together. What structures that agreement will differ. Tournament players have both agreed to attend a tournament, abide by the regulations, and have a similar goal in mind. Casual players do the same - you've got a similar interest and you're there to have fun. When the fun stops, what's the point?

You can voice it a number of ways, so obviously don't just tell him "Dude your list is lame and it sucks playing against you.", start with "Man, we're really struggling to enjoy playing against this Knight list you bring..."

I think this is a sensible post. I too quit playing both Fantasy and 40K because of this feeling, and I am only warming up to getting back into them after years away, and then with Kings of War and One Page Rules games rather than the actual games themselves, because fantasy as I knew it is gone, and 40K seems like a totally different game now. But ultimately you have to have an adult conversation about this.

It may be that your friend does not respond in a constructive way or feels attacked or whatever. You cannot control that. If he does, well, maybe you just need to not play against him. Wargames are a heavy investment of time, money and effort for you not to be having fun playing against someone regularly. Better if you just refuse to do so, if he will not make any compromises.

It does kinda suck for him after spending the money getting himself the knights, but that is the nature of playing GW games. The same thing can happen to any of us who choose an army that the design team do not like. GW is unprofessional and bad at game design, so these sorts of issues crop up all the time in their games.

Karol wrote:

I know someone is going to have to change list which more or less means buying new stuff.

I'm not sure that's true. it sounds like the knight player also has a full IG army. He could just cut back on the knights and field more IG stuff.

What I do question is though, is why someone who is already buying his second army, suppose to buy a third one, because people don't like playing against the second batch of stuff he bought. I know that the question was asked by someone who, or atleast I think so my english is way away from good, is not the knight player. I don't know how it can be fixed, within the rules it can't. Socialy there are probably one a milion ways to fix it, but I don't think that telling someone to buy/play something else is a good way to start. I doubt he bought 4 knights and his models/list and he hates them, maybe then making him not play it could be an option, other wise I have no idea how to fix the sitation. In game play or rules there is nothing that could work. And social stuff, I have no opinion on, as in general I don't get the intereactions.

It sounds like his frustration with playing full IG was that he felt like he always lost. Now with full knights, he's frustrating his opponents by always winning. Seems to me that it would be easy enough to field a single knight and some IG stuff. To oversimplify, if IG = too bad and knights = too good, then IG + Knights should be somewhere in the middle. Which is where he should want to be if his goal is to win some games and lose others.

My aeldari collection happens to include a decent number of dark reapers and yvraine. For a long while, that was a very powerful combo. Realizing that most people would not enjoy playing against this at the local league knight, I opted not to play those units together. In a game like 40k where the potency of lists can vary wildly, striving to have your own potency match that of your opponent's is not an unreasonable thing to do.

try running games at differant point values, that'll force him to mix it up and everyone else too. "ok today we're doing 1000 points everyone" if your knight player refuses to play those just shrug and play anyway he can go home and sulk

What kind of missions do you play? Knights are easy to move block and neutralize if you know what you are doing. Most people I know have stopped using them for that reason.

I'm in agreement with most folks here: the point of the game is to have fun. If someone isn't having fun, then both players have failed to achieve their objective. As others have said, you and your group need to have a talk about what you expect when you play the game and how to best accommodate everyone in meeting those expectations. Whether it's list adjustment, new missions, more terrain, or what have you, something needs to change if people just aren't enjoying themselves anymore.

Personally, because I find the interesting part of the game is trying to win the various missions rather than tabling an opponent's army, I find full knight lists to be a challenge I don't get to enjoy nearly often enough. More often I have to deal with the much more obnoxious IMO single knight in a non-knight list that just charges in and gets fueled with a million CPs.

These four knights...are we talking four big knights? Two armigers and two big knights? Four armigers? My opinion on this situation heavily depends on what we're talking here, because IMO if you can't handle an armgier-class knight, your list just doesn't have enough to deal with any standard vehicle. They're so close in profile to standard stuff like russes and predators that you just fell for the "too many troops" trap.

vehicles are hard to kill, they have a ton of wounds, high T and saves that are sometimes invunarable, an army would have to have a lot of d2 or higher weapons to deal with one vehicles per turn. With four which also shot you back it is much harder to do.

a game is a social contract, lets get together and have fun. I liek playing my orks but there are a few players locally who will literally not start making thier list until they see your models/possibly list on the table. I do not enjoy playing against something tailored specifically to beat me so I just turn them down for games. Also there are people who are very sore losers who put themselves down and just are unpleasant when they are losing. I will also generally just after talking to them a few times turn them down as well.

I rarely will personally call a game unless it is truly unwinnable and the opponent and I both agree there is no way forward. Even then only if it is going to take a lot of time. sometimes i let them have the fun of wiping me to the last if its not going to take too long. If its the first game htough and other opponents are availabel or it my opponent wants to do a enw scenario with me sure lets finish this one, handshake as a your army is victorious and move to the next one.

calling it at 2/4 knights is to early imo.

Karol wrote:
vehicles are hard to kill, they have a ton of wounds, high T and saves that are sometimes invunarable, an army would have to have a lot of d2 or higher weapons to deal with one vehicles per turn. With four which also shot you back it is much harder to do.

I mean...yes? But like, a rhino is a vehicle. We're talking about 2,000 point games here I assume. If you can't handle a rhino with TWO THOUSAND POINTS of your stuff, you are bringing some kind of wacky army.

An Armiger class knight is T7, W12, 3+5++. If you asked me "What game size is too small to bring a model like that" I would probably tell you "like, 500? 750 maybe?"

It's basically a predator that has 2 Predator Autocannons instead of 1 predator autocannon and two lascannons. It's got an invuln save, and it's a little more mobile, and it costs a little bit more. But that's it really.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
vehicles are hard to kill, they have a ton of wounds, high T and saves that are sometimes invunarable, an army would have to have a lot of d2 or higher weapons to deal with one vehicles per turn. With four which also shot you back it is much harder to do.

I mean...yes? But like, a rhino is a vehicle. We're talking about 2,000 point games here I assume. If you can't handle a rhino with TWO THOUSAND POINTS of your stuff, you are bringing some kind of wacky army.

An Armiger class knight is T7, W12, 3+5++. If you asked me "What game size is too small to bring a model like that" I would probably tell you "like, 500? 750 maybe?"

It's basically a predator that has 2 Predator Autocannons instead of 1 predator autocannon and two lascannons. It's got an invuln save, and it's a little more mobile, and it costs a little bit more. But that's it really.

Karol plays Grey Knights, so their problems are endemic to their army. They dont have the $€£¥ to improve their list and are angry that the meta they play in what has gotta be the worst meta on the planet.

To be fair tho, the problems with GK are not solely on Karol's shoulders, GW(I mean Matt Ward) has the lions share of the blame.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
vehicles are hard to kill, they have a ton of wounds, high T and saves that are sometimes invunarable, an army would have to have a lot of d2 or higher weapons to deal with one vehicles per turn. With four which also shot you back it is much harder to do.

I mean...yes? But like, a rhino is a vehicle. We're talking about 2,000 point games here I assume. If you can't handle a rhino with TWO THOUSAND POINTS of your stuff, you are bringing some kind of wacky army.

An Armiger class knight is T7, W12, 3+5++. If you asked me "What game size is too small to bring a model like that" I would probably tell you "like, 500? 750 maybe?"

It's basically a predator that has 2 Predator Autocannons instead of 1 predator autocannon and two lascannons. It's got an invuln save, and it's a little more mobile, and it costs a little bit more. But that's it really.

yes and with cover and invs shoting at it with mostly str 4 stormbolters and one units of str 5 stormbolters means you don't always kill a tank per turn with shoting, specially if it is something t7-8 or higher. My army doesn't have access to predators, our heaviest troop carried weapon is d1 and low shot number. There are hvy version of the gun mounted on NDKs, but those get focused fired very fast as they are often one of the few sources of anti tank. You can take dreandoughts, land raiders and stormravens, and then cast astral aim on one, but in general your taking sm vehicles that cost more in an army that already costs more points. And this is the case of most optimal builds, if you want to try something else then a tournament GK list, then your going to have much bigger problems killing vehicles with shoting. Even being in range is sometimes a problem, when your dealing with something like eldar flyers. those are practicaly unkillable for an army mostly based around heros and termintor class models.

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
vehicles are hard to kill, they have a ton of wounds, high T and saves that are sometimes invunarable, an army would have to have a lot of d2 or higher weapons to deal with one vehicles per turn. With four which also shot you back it is much harder to do.

I mean...yes? But like, a rhino is a vehicle. We're talking about 2,000 point games here I assume. If you can't handle a rhino with TWO THOUSAND POINTS of your stuff, you are bringing some kind of wacky army.

An Armiger class knight is T7, W12, 3+5++. If you asked me "What game size is too small to bring a model like that" I would probably tell you "like, 500? 750 maybe?"

It's basically a predator that has 2 Predator Autocannons instead of 1 predator autocannon and two lascannons. It's got an invuln save, and it's a little more mobile, and it costs a little bit more. But that's it really.

yes and with cover and invs shoting at it with mostly str 4 stormbolters and one units of str 5 stormbolters means you don't always kill a tank per turn with shoting, specially if it is something t7-8 or higher. My army doesn't have access to predators, our heaviest troop carried weapon is d1 and low shot number. There are hvy version of the gun mounted on NDKs, but those get focused fired very fast as they are often one of the few sources of anti tank. You can take dreandoughts, land raiders and stormravens, and then cast astral aim on one, but in general your taking sm vehicles that cost more in an army that already costs more points. And this is the case of most optimal builds, if you want to try something else then a tournament GK list, then your going to have much bigger problems killing vehicles with shoting. Even being in range is sometimes a problem, when your dealing with something like eldar flyers. those are practicaly unkillable for an army mostly based around heros and termintor class models.

A: this falls into the category if "it isn't my problem if your storm bolters aren't killing tanks, and just because you're trying to kill tanks with storm bolters doesn't mean storm bolters should kill tanks"
B: the Grey Knights are a little weak in the ranged AT department. However, they do have Astral Aim Dreadnoughts. They also have access to Razorbacks; so between Dreads and Razors it's not like there's no access to affordable Lascannons.
C: for man-packed AT weapons, consider the Psilencer; which actually out-averages the Psycannon against T7 vehicles and runs up equal against T8 ones.
D: there's also AT melee. From Daemonhammers to Nemesis Greatswords, and the universal 1D3 damage melee attacks, vehicles can be engaged and destroyed in close quarters.

The Grey Knights have a lot of weakness, but complaining that tanks are OP because your light machinegun can't kill them is patently stupid. The deficiency of ranged AT options is a problem with your army's architecture specifically, not with the game.

Also E: Grey Knights are an IMPERIAL faction. I'm intending to back mine up with a platoon of Ebon Chalice Exorcists+Imagifier for ranged antitank and a minimum size brigade of IG for command points.



Back around to the original topic of discussion:
I think it's fair to complain about being a poor sport if your opponent is consistently conceding while they're still in the fight just because things haven't gone exactly as planned. Part of a tactical wargame is making decisions when things aren't going as planned, because the enemy won't be playing along nicely in your script for their defeat.
However, I don't think it's fair to complain about his list. That's his list; and I assume that it's legal within the confines of the force organization charts and the matched play. Complaining about opponent's armies, especially if you make no effort to answer it yourself with your own options is in my opinion, also poor sportsmanship. Come back next time with more lascannons or some heavy AT melee and ways to make him fight last.

>Tau player whining

Everything looks in order to me, tbh.

If you were not to find any agreement, have you got any other games to play to? Maybe your group would be better off with something else than 40k, where cheese is obviously a thing as it heats the debates daily...

If you absolutly want to stick with 40k, switching to Kill Team seems to be fairly often suggested here on dakka, why not try?

yeah, the guy who didn't like IG, and bought in to 4 knights is going to love to hear that the whole group decided to switch to kill team, where he can't use the models

B: the Grey Knights are a little weak in the ranged AT department. However, they do have Astral Aim Dreadnoughts. They also have access to Razorbacks; so between Dreads and Razors it's not like there's no access to affordable Lascannons.

you can cast astra aim on one target. And razorbacks can't transport termintor models. You would practicaly have to buy strikes to run the army. Which for me would mean I have to buy 6 box of units for an army which is bad. I ain't going to invest a dime in to GK, until GW fixs their rules. For all I know next CA they can nerf strikes.

for man-packed AT weapons, consider the Psilencer; which actually out-averages the Psycannon against T7 vehicles and runs up equal against T8 ones.

yes and I can take 1 per 5 dudes. Plus my termintors came only with psycanons and incinerators. But even if someone allowed me to count as, just because psilancers are better, doesn't mean they are good anti tank source. It is really not that hard to be better at anti tank then psycanons for how much they cost and how many d1 shots they have . Storm bolters are better anti tank weapons then psycanons and they are build in to GK.

there's also AT melee. From Daemonhammers to Nemesis Greatswords, and the universal 1D3 damage melee attacks, vehicles can be engaged and destroyed in close quarters.

yes. although it does not help me against the most popular armies here which are eldar flyers and various knight builds. I do try to melee stuff, but reaching melee with enough models is a problem. Hammers are a problem too. non of the models I have come with them, they have a mix of halabards and swords.

Also E: Grey Knights are an IMPERIAL faction. I'm intending to back mine up with a platoon of Ebon Chalice Exorcists+Imagifier for ranged antitank and a minimum size brigade of IG for command points.

If I had money to buy a new army, I wouldn't be spending them on GK, that is for sure. Unless GW brings out a GK codex or WD supplement and fixs their rules. I wouldn't pick up IG, because I don't like the models. I want the stuff I have to be good to play with. Other people that started with me had good time with their armies, some left, some sold their armies. I can't even sell the models for how much I bought them, can't even sell them for 2/3 of what I paid for them.

Karol wrote:
yeah, the guy who didn't like IG, and bought in to 4 knights is going to love to hear that the whole group decided to switch to kill team, where he can't use the models

All things considered why should that be an issue.

Btw at op, have you tried diffrent point levels etc.?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
yeah, the guy who didn't like IG, and bought in to 4 knights is going to love to hear that the whole group decided to switch to kill team, where he can't use the models

All things considered why should that be an issue.

the fixs proposed were two, play something else. Am sure the person who bought two armies, while others bought one, is going to love it. Or play a sub game, which maybe very fun, I don't know because no one plays kill team here, but a knight player, again I think, sorry if am wrong about it, won't be able to use any of his knights in kill team. He will be able to use the IG, which he doesn't like to play. I find both ways to fix the situation bad, and in both cases not really different then telling someone your not going to play against them.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
yeah, the guy who didn't like IG, and bought in to 4 knights is going to love to hear that the whole group decided to switch to kill team, where he can't use the models

All things considered why should that be an issue.

the fixs proposed were two, play something else. Am sure the person who bought two armies, while others bought one, is going to love it. Or play a sub game, which maybe very fun, I don't know because no one plays kill team here, but a knight player, again I think, sorry if am wrong about it, won't be able to use any of his knights in kill team. He will be able to use the IG, which he doesn't like to play. I find both ways to fix the situation bad, and in both cases not really different then telling someone your not going to play against them.

He has two armies though and kt can literally be run really competently by IG so that is a non issue par excellence.
Variety is the spice of life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vaklor4 wrote:
>Tau player whining

Everything looks in order to me, tbh.

Sheesh, way to go pal.

He has two armies though and kt can literally be run really competently by IG so that is a non issue par excellence.

now from what I remember from the description of the situation, he changed from IG to knights, because he didn't like how IG played. so yeah, he may have an army he may use in kill team, but why would he want to play it, if he hates how it is played?

Well, the OP stated the player switched because they "were tired of losing all the time". I assume if IG have a good chance of winning KT, they'd be fine with that.

Karol wrote:

He has two armies though and kt can literally be run really competently by IG so that is a non issue par excellence.

now from what I remember from the description of the situation, he changed from IG to knights, because he didn't like how IG played. so yeah, he may have an army he may use in kill team, but why would he want to play it, if he hates how it is played?

Cause kt is quite diffrent in behaviour compared to 40k?

Also additionally you can't force someone to play against anything if he doesn't want to.
I personally don't mind knights, i just find it boring to play against them.
And I also think they are overall as pure skew army unhealthy for the game. That is a diffrent discussion though.
Overall 40k is a social game, and I found the closer the matches are the better the overall experience for both parties involved.
And guess what, when both sides are happy you get to make more rounds.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Well, the OP stated the player switched because they "were tired of losing all the time". I assume if IG have a good chance of winning KT, they'd be fine with that.

My first issue is how he even lost all the time in the first place, guard has a decent dex. Ofcourse there's the chance that the Tau player is a massive prick aswell in this case. Which reminds me, what does the Tau player play?

One of his enemies is a Khorne marine player.
I mean if he played GK or r&h or any other fw list i could 've understand why he is annoyed.

Karol wrote:
yeah, the guy who didn't like IG, and bought in to 4 knights is going to love to hear that the whole group decided to switch to kill team, where he can't use the models

you can cast astra aim on one target. And razorbacks can't transport termintor models. You would practicaly have to buy strikes to run the army. Which for me would mean I have to buy 6 box of units for an army which is bad. I ain't going to invest a dime in to GK, until GW fixs their rules. For all I know next CA they can nerf strikes.

yes and I can take 1 per 5 dudes. Plus my termintors came only with psycanons and incinerators. But even if someone allowed me to count as, just because psilancers are better, doesn't mean they are good anti tank source. It is really not that hard to be better at anti tank then psycanons for how much they cost and how many d1 shots they have . Storm bolters are better anti tank weapons then psycanons and they are build in to GK.

yes. although it does not help me against the most popular armies here which are eldar flyers and various knight builds. I do try to melee stuff, but reaching melee with enough models is a problem. Hammers are a problem too. non of the models I have come with them, they have a mix of halabards and swords.

If I had money to buy a new army, I wouldn't be spending them on GK, that is for sure. Unless GW brings out a GK codex or WD supplement and fixs their rules. I wouldn't pick up IG, because I don't like the models. I want the stuff I have to be good to play with. Other people that started with me had good time with their armies, some left, some sold their armies. I can't even sell the models for how much I bought them, can't even sell them for 2/3 of what I paid for them.

Most of these sound much more like you problems that systemic problems. If you reject half the army list and it's options, especially one so short as the Grey Knights, you're not going to go far even if the book was decent. If you literally make no attempt to bring antitank weapons, then you're going to die to tanks, big wonder, yes? There are antitank options; dreadnoughts with twinlas+missile will go far enough too, even without Astral Aim, if you refuse to use allied detachments. You also don't have to load the razorbacks, and can just have twinlas tanks floating around.

I won't contest that Grey Knights are not a very strong army, but at some point you're really just complaining that your list is bad and you refuse to change it and instead demand that the rules/everybody else change to make your list good. Anti-infantry storm bolters won't be good against tanks, nor will a Psycannon, it's not an antitank gun. But there are options, and if you aren't willing to use them, that's not my problem, nor is it a problem with the rules.

Also, what were you expecting to sell models for? Were you expecting them to hold value? They're not a car or a house or a stock; once you open the box and build them like, who is really going to want to pay anywhere near full price for them? I can just buy a box and have the enjoyment of building mine the way I want them.



This is the same way I feel about the people recommending that the OP tell their friend to not play Knights. I think it's poor sportsmanship to make your first approach to somebody beating you to be telling them that their list is OP and you hate playing against their army rather than considering changes to your list to make your list capable of handling what they brought.

And, in the case of knights, they don't get their invulnerable save in melee, so to the OP, who I think mentioned playing khorne daemons, there are some DP builds that can wreck a knight in one go and can be easily protected using cheap daemon infantry, try that.

Not Online!!! wrote:

My first issue is how he even lost all the time in the first place, guard has a decent dex. Ofcourse there's the chance that the Tau player is a massive prick aswell in this case. Which reminds me, what does the Tau player play?

One of his enemies is a Khorne marine player.
I mean if he played GK or r&h or any other fw list i could 've understand why he is annoyed.

From the OP, it seems that they were all new players with no 40k experience. Most likely issue is that they aren't playing Missions or Objectives and just playing "murder everything on planet bowling ball". In which case, IG would probably suffer a bit compared to a Tau Gunline or the more durable Chaos Marines.

It's an issue to be sure. Knights are one of those all or nothing armies, if you can shut them down, feels bad for the knight player, if you can't feels bad for the one playing against the knights.

As much as I hate to say it, Warhammer is an arms race. You'll either need to build up to face this knights, or have him dial it back and add in more guard, focus most on objectives and use better cover.

Thats about all you have access to. Now, the most spiteful way is to build up so much anti tank his knights don't stand a chance and blow him off the board game after game with no mercy till he decides to mix his list up. That can be cathartic and teach him why over focusing on one thing can be a bad thing in the end.

Knights are a lot of points and you can flood the field with AT to take them down, it'll feel bad for him but sometimes you need to be the bad guy and it'll feel better than being denied games.

In my mind, the problem models like Knights bring to the game is that you can't TAC-list a Knight house list. Knights are kinda the epitome super specialized lists that will fall hard to a select few lists and curb-stomp others. There's some models that do this individually and some lists that swing thing that badly.

It may also fall that the design philosophy of the group has changed drastically. Their former lists may have been more TAC/Oldhammer friendly and now this changeover the group as a whole must either shift their meta or find some other outlet for the IG player.

Either way, it is unfair for anyone to call out the players who no longer wish to play against the Knight player as that shift may be financially out of reach of the other players or otherwise they may not agree with that design philosophy and so a game meant to be fun for two has very decidedly become not-fun for one. Is anyone going to sit here and say people should be forced to play 40k if the game is not fun for them?

Racerguy180 wrote:
To be fair tho, the problems with GK are not solely on Karol's shoulders, GW(I mean Matt Ward) has the lions share of the blame.

To be even more fair, Matt Ward wrote a competitive GK codex and provided them with cheap screening units.

The one thing you can't blame Matt Ward for is writing weak codices, he made everything he wrote OP

On thing that I'm noticing creep up in 40k is different expectations for games, in that wargaming traditionally plays a full game to see what happens, while more competitive games like Magic are usually played until a win condition is achieved or inevitably, and then restarted.

It can be frustrating to be done early in a game, because usually you'd just concede and replay. but the time and effort it takes to even set up a game of 40k means that full, five or six turn games are the norm. You may want to explore that aspect.

Playing pure knights is completely different than anything else in 40k. It turns a company scale wargame into a skirmish game. It's simply easier to play. I'm not saying four knights is OP, but it's simply easier to keep track of four elements instead of dozens, and there are few overlapping buffs or psychic powers to deal with. They're just very straight forward, while also having a high level of action economy. A good player with knights in a casual environment can be really tough to beat.

Achievement unlocked! "Win at any cost"

Achievement unlocked! "Game Group: Kill Confirmed"

KnightGuy needs to blend IG and Knights to match the 4 man environment or he's going to plaintively look at $600+ worth of models on a shelf.

Especially if more objective heavy games are used with LoS blocking terrain.

Now, I will say I can sympathize (and enjoy!) cleaning up early. If it was gakky rolls that lead to a 50% unit loss two turns in, then a new game will be easy to set up. If your casual, narratively pleasing army sees something that gets tailor made to destroy it (like say, a 6 character mono nurgle sans Dad vs a four detachment Guilly led Crusade detachment with seven snipers and four assassin's) then there's a certain satisfaction in just walking off and writing that player off as an opponent.