So, another weekly club report, another loss. I read somewhere that most players lose most of the first games in the first year of playing 40K, but I wonder if that is really true. I also think I'm not an idiot, I've got a fairly good grasp of the rules. I think my continual losses are a result of two things: first, my limited army selection, and two, the army itself (vanilla space marines).
In the club, there are two Black Templars players, one tyranid player, one Grey Knight and one space marine player who regularly show up. All four play in the tournament leagues (Hard Boyz, etc.) All have larger armies than my own. All have played longer than me. Out in the fringe there are an Imperial Guard player, a Chaos Space Marine player, and two Ork players but I haven't seen too much of them in the past several months. Mostly I've been losing to BT players. And can I just say how much that sucks? The BT codex is old. It has marines that run towards you when you shoot them and then get to re-roll when they get into assault. Oh, and when I do shoot them, they get taken off of neophytes. Damn it I hate those guys. But it's okay, if I get tired of them, there's always the uber-cheesy Grey Knights.
So here's how I figure it. There are four factors to doing better in 40k: skill, luck, army choice (as in what army you field, e.g. Space Marines or Eldar), and army composition. I don't think all factors are weighed equally. I can't affect my luck. I can improve my skill, although I wonder how much farther I can go with that.
That leaves the other two options. I can pump up my Space Marines, buy a Land Raider or another Land Speeder or a bunch of terminators with thunder hammers and storm shields. I could overcome my aversion to Special Characters. Or I could build a second army, maybe an anti-MEQ army since that seems to be the flavor de jour in the group. But that means investing another $500 in this stupid game.
Oh well, enough griping. Feedback welcome.