Why Play Competetive 40K

[JoeGuardsman]

I need someone to help remind me why I would like competitive 40K. I've been in a Fantasy mode for a really long time now and it has just made me feel that Fantasy is a much more balanced game and better for competitive games. I love 40k background and story and I really want to play games that are geared towards fluffiness and fun but without any restrictions the armies get out of control.

Restrictions are what make Fantasy an easier game to balance and it makes the game more tactical in my opinion. Rules restrictions like LoS and movement aside my big problem with the lack of restrictions in 40k is army design. You can just exploit lists in 40k unabashedly and even change the whole theme of the army list itself.

I just find too many armies in 40k built outside of the original idea of the army book and I get tired of fighting armies that you would either never see in the 40k universe or would only see them maybe once a millennium. Just give me some help because I've lost faith in the game as a competitive system.

[God_Grinder]

hey JG, i wish i had a big long rant on how awsome 40k is, BUT im in the same boat. love the univers & flufyness, but aside from that i think the game ......to be nice, not so good. now maybe 5th ed will change somethings but form the sound of it, its just a tweek on the curent system. i also agree fantasy is wher its at! great, solid game all the way around. im curently stuk tryin to figure out what fantasy army to build cause i put together a BoC army and desided after seeing the deamons it wasnt worth the bother lol. anyhoo just thought id chime in and let you know you are not alone.

P/S if you want a game that is fast paced very startegic and just plain brutal i would strongly suggest checking out Warmachine. its filled the void that 40k left for me

[Sir_Servo]

Sorry I am going to have to disagree with you on the fantasy being easier and more balanced. Neither game is easy nor balanced. Both systems lend themselves to being broken quite easily. In fact due to the new codexs being released in 40k the tournament scene has changed dramatically. 2+ years ago I used to be a heavy participant in tournament play and any one that brought a Dark Eldar (if any one actually had one) or a regular eldar (if no dark eldar were present) then they would basically win.

I played in tournaments in the Twin Cities, Rochester, and Winona in Minnesota. La Crosse and Madison in Wisconsin. And I traveled to Chicago for both Grand Tournaments and Adepticon a few different years. I would say that 80% of the time, if not more, one of the two different army lists mentioned above won the tournament. Now that I am back in the tournament scene I have seen different army lists winning including, S.Marines, Chaos, Necrons, and Tyranids.

As for Fantasy when I played, witch I will give you wasn't in current rules, but I had a Skaven list that I took first place in 6 consecutive tournaments (Chicago was the only place I didn't take the list to). With a deadly mixture of Shooting and Magic, along with a screaming bell, I did quite well for myself (I have my old list lying around some where with my finall tally before I retired from Fantasy, Memory serves it was something like 40wins and only 5 losses). The thing about fantasy is the result of the game is dependent on deployment. I know I will catch flack for this, but I can tell the result of a fantasy game basied soley on deployment and I will be correct at least 75% of the time. Every once and awhile luck will intervine and allow you to pull out a win if you deploy incorrectly. But because of the static nature of the game deployment will make or break a game. Even calvary, unless it is fast cav, will be used to march straight forward in order to get the charge. Fast Cav is used to get a flank charge, but then again that relys on you deploying them in an advantageous position, otherwise they will get chewed up by shooting, a different close combat unit, or magic.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the mobility of 40k allows you to compensate for a infierior deployment than your opponents. Does this make the game better? No, but it does make it different. I mean if you really want to compare 40k and fantasy, you simpily can't. It would be like comparing Poker and Euker, both have rules, both use cards, both require more than one person to play, but that is where the similarities end. Both use different stratedgies, both have different styles of stradgies that you can employ, and both are enjoyed by a multitude of different people.

Sorry don't mean to rant, but I am grumpy today and this has triggered some old feelings from when I worked in my old hobby shop. There was one guy there that no matter who walked through the door he tried convincing them that Fantasy was the best way to go. Now this could be a kid that has a hover-board from Back to the Future, a Darth Vader replica helmet, and a shirt that says 'losers live in the past the future is where it's at!'. And he would still try and convince them to play fantasy. If I wasn't there to stop him they would actually try it, hate it because they wanted Sci-fi and not only do we loose another player, but the store lost another paying customer.

I think that is more than my two cents,
Servo

PS: Sorry if I offended or upset any one with this post. It is ment to be informitive. After I take a nap and relax a little I will revisit it and see if I can tone down any harshness that may be lurking in here.

[Prince of the Night]

40K is all about scenarios. I have been playing for about 15 years with 5 different armies and always used a balanced list. 95 % of my thousands of games have been very competitive, win lose or draw regardless if I was playing against another balanced list or an over the top broken one. You could play the same two armies same deployment and same turn sequence and have multiple different outcomes depending on the scenario played. Scenarios are the reason 40K exists IMHO. With the 5th edition around the corner, from what I have seen the game will be even more scenario based with multiple objectives per scenario.

[JoeGuardsman]

Definitely didn't offend me at all. I realize now that I didn't fill out the ideas in my initial post and it came out too much like the simple Fantasy is better than 40k. I actually like the 4th edition rule set a lot and I think it makes for a fair game in terms of movement, shooting and hand to hand.

40k and Fantasy and I'll throw in chess can't be compared fairly but the feeling I get when I'm playing a game can. This just comes up to a matter of opinion. In fantasy having to manage a full battle plan while micro-managing the more complicated movement rules in fantasy is my idea of strategy but the movement rules in fantasy can be viewed as convoluted/confusing and take the fun away for some people. In 40k I can manage a battle plan which is fun but I don't really have to do that much micro-management. This makes 40k much more fast paced and by all means 40k should be like this since it is working with loose squad formations so I can't even ask for complicated movement rules. Like I said however I do like the rule system.

I don't like playing against competitive army lists. I think the codex writing in 40k is much worse than the army book writing in fantasy. I agree with you that there are some breakable books in fantasy and Skaven is at the top of the list (Lizardmen are up there too). 40k books for whatever reason leave themselves wide open to fairly broken lists and there are certain match ups in certain terrain that I don't even have to go through the deployment phase to know I'm probably going to lose. That is my problem with 40k really is that if Fantasy is decided a lot of the time in the deployment phase, 40k is decided in army selection.

That was my point. Here is some more info about where my current feelings are coming from. I was playing 40k just fine last year during the Medusa campaign and I played it all during my stay in Japan. Also I'm a good 40k player and I can make a power list. My Big-shoota orks from the last book never lost a game while I was in Japan and the two games when I was home. When I came back I went back to my Guard and came back to a GW store where every competitive player was playing Death/Raven or Raven/Death, Mech Eldar, Tyranids (too broken in my opinion) and two Lash Chaos and when I face these armies in a city it is all over.

I just don't want to play against these armies that have taken advantage of every poorly written rule and special character. Also I don't want my Guard army to have to take as many plasma guns as it has to. There aren't that many plasma guns in a whole regiment, the Dark Angels can't afford to take that many casualties to the Ravenwing and Deathwing, Slaanesh sorcerers aren't in every warband. I dunno, I just think it is time for a change in the type of 40k games I play. It just isn't fun competitively anymore for me. Only problem for me is that I have to help a friend prepare for the 40k GT.

[JoeGuardsman]

Yeah scenarios are great. They can but don't always stop power builds.

[Sir_Servo]

Ahh I get it now... I go through something similar once every 3-5 years. I have been collecting 40k/fantasy for over 15 years now. I love the hobby, but on a few seprate occasions now I have needed to take up to 2 years off just to sit back talk shop with friends and build models. No games for me, just enjoying the artistic side of the hobby. However have you played with the Apoc rules yet? These have really revitalised my intrest in games. As of right now nothing is more enjoyable than dusting off the minis I haven't used in years and throwing down with every thing I own in a 10,000 point battle! Ohh the glory that can be gained on a field of battle when that size of forces meet.

My two cents,
Servo