"They are too expensive to add more bodies for extra feet on the table and don't add enough in combat with only 1A each (unlike say Grey Hunters)"

Um, no? One power weapon attack has 3x the effect against MEQs than a normal attack, since the opponent won't get a chance to save. A GKSS guy adds *more* to combat than a Grey Hunter does. This difference only becomes more overt when you factor in Hammerhand and the actual force weapon ability, or the chance that your target has FNP. Grey Hunters are good troops, but when it comes to adding a GKSS or adding a GH, the GKSS does more in assault in most cases.

Now, against Orks or horde IG or whatever, the Grey Hunter does have better assault capabilities (except against Nobz and the like)-- but he is still worse off shooting-wise than his GKSS comrade, and if you need elite assault units to beat Orks or horde IG...

The Best Overall army also had the highest battle points, and the 2nd Best Overall had the 2nd-highest. Best General went to a Vanilla Marine player but was really "third place" at this event.

DE honestly have a big advantage over most GK armies, who tend to have 2-4 units in the entire army that can fire at ranges greater than 24".

Hey, did you look at the recent WargamesCon results? The Best Overall army was DE; the 2nd Best Overall army was horde Orkz. Sounds to me like Xenos armies are viable after all...

I really don't think this game is less luck-based-- you basically roll 2d6 to determine the effects of damage, and based on that roll you can do the same amount of damage to two units and have one get wiped out completely while the other fights on at full strength! In my eyes, the lack of casualty removal is a dealbreaker here, as it makes the game too abstract for my tastes given the setting.

Sure thing. Just last weekend, a Chaos player won the Bugeater GT by defeating a Dark Angels army in the last round and a Space Marine player won the Boston Brawl, beating a Chaos player by only one point in the final standings. All in all, I think, as you say, there are a lot of jaded players out there, especially on the Internet-- but things really aren't as bad in modern 40k as people seem to think online-- anger and frustration over GW price rises or rumor policies, which is quite justified, sometimes sort of gets conflated with anger towards the system as a whole.

Personally I'm not too familiar with Warmachine, so I'm not sure exactly what those examples mean, but I know people who swear by it and love the game. Way I see it, that's great-- I love seeing more games getting popular out there so that there's a place for everyone in this hobby. If 40k isn't your thing, maybe something else is. :)

"But I'll ask you a question. If you were going to take a Space Marine army to a tournament, which Space Marine army would you take? I asked that question recently of a number of 40k players (12 to be precise) and the answer was startling for me. I had 4 ask if Grey Knights counted as 'marines' and I said yes and they chose Grey Knights while the other 8 all said Space Wolves. Now I know its hardly a representative sample it was interesting nonetheless. I've also been told countless times that the older Codices aren't worth bothering with, such as Eldar or Tau if you want to be competitive. "

I would take "vanilla" Marines, as that's the Codex I'm most familiar with, my typical army tends to play to their strengths, and I believe that all the Marine Codices are more or less balanced with one another. If I were denied that option, I'd probably go with a Blood Angels list.

Way I see it, the only truly bad Codex is the Necrons, and they're getting revised soon. Everybody else can at least put up a strong fight, and as evidenced by recent GT wins by vanilla Marines and Chaos, do so on a high level to boot.

This post honestly strikes me as fit-pitching. I can't speak for Fantasy, but anyone who thinks "the tactics of 40k stop at army building" is playing at a low level and not really qualified to make this sort of comment.

Further, anyone who thinks modern 40k is seriously unbalanced needs to breathe and take a step back. 40k is more balanced than it's ever been; in the last few months, we've seen GT wins from Codices new and old, including widely-derided armies such as Orks and Chaos Marines, and armies have never been so diverse. If you look back to the tail end of 4th edition, the game was so broken that 90% of GT-level armies conformed to one of two archetypes (Nidzilla or Mechdar)-- now, we see wide spreads of armies from all Codices. Most competitive players agree that all the 5th edition books are more or less balanced with one another, with the possible exception of Tyranids.

GW isn't always wrong. They're currently releasing great models-- the new Dark Eldar line is probably the best set of figures GW's ever made, period-- the rules are more balanced then ever, and the competitive scene is flourishing as a result. Look at all the new events going up, the rise of the NOVA format, the elimination of comp-- it's great stuff. All things considered, it's a good time to be a 40k player. That doesn't mean other systems aren't good too, of course, but 40k's in its best shape yet as of now.

Do you guys think Ironclads have potential if Stormravens come to C:SM?

The original "leafblower" army is seriously nonoptimized; that said, all varieties of "leafblower" army rely on going first and are vulnerable to balanced lists that can suppress some of their heavy hitters while closing to engage. The "leafblower" army also suffers from a few extremely bad matchups (bikers).