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.

 TheCaptain wrote:

You don't have to, but you'll have more fun when the other player is having fun. You don't need to have two whole sets of models or anything, but having a "Wreck faces" list and a "Don't table the poor kid" list written up will make it easier to ensure everyone is enjoying themself; it's a matter of consideration.

Plus a second, less powerful list lets you try out some of the less optimal codex choices guilt-free.

I can't take a deathstrike missile and a couple sentinels in a Tourney list; because they're remarkably average in incredibly valuable slots, but they sure are fun and I love the chance to use them.

Everyone includes me, why my I always cater to the other player instead of being able to promote a culture of improved play?

Some examples:
I regularly took Sentinels as IG in 4th/5th and Dreadnaughts as SM to little effect
I primarily field Missile/flamer Tactical Squads
I field Assault Marines, even though the SM ones aren't very good for their points
I fielded a 5 man assault termie squad, flootslogging in most games
As IG I normally fielded flamers and grenade launchers

But I field a couple Leman Russes and a Hellhound in 2k - whining about overpowered
A single indirect fire artillery - whining from players who field the same thing in the same game

Why should I actively gimp myself just to please the other player who is likely complaining about something that isn't even correct because they don't understand the rules? Is it really unreasonable to assume the other player should bring a basic understanding of the rules when they play instead of just going with whatever interpretation they happen to come across that helps their own army?

You can't enjoy yourself with a slightly less optimal list if it means helping your opponent have fun too?

And to put it bluntly, because a lot of 40k players happen to be socially stunted neckbeards that throw a fit if they deem you use too much "cheese".

 snooggums wrote:
Why must I always cater to the other player, why can't they bring a moderately powerful list?

It should always be a compromise. The 'competitive' player should tone his list down a bit, while the 'fluffy' player should tune his list up a little, and hopefully they'll meet somewhere in the middle.

Pick up games are always going to be a problem because you won't know what sort of player your opponent is until the game starts, and by then it's too late to do much about it. Sometimes you'll get lucky, and sometimes you won't. My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to bring a moderately powerful list to blind pick-up games. Then you shouldn't be so underpowered as to be unable to cope with powerful lists, and hopefully not so overpowered as to crush fluffly lists without breaking a sweat. You gotta aim for that sweet spot.

But in regular groups, you should be able to gauge the way people play, and build a list accordingly. If they're all hardcore tournament players and you just pick models that look nice, you're going to have to tune up your list, get used to losing a lot, or find another group. If they're all fluffy players who take themed lists and don't aim for powerful builds, then you're going to have to tone down your list, get used to being called TFG as you roflstomp everyone, or find another group.

 TheCaptain wrote:
But this implies that someone with a fluffy army has no chance of playing another player with an equally fluffy army. There is nothing stopping the "fluff" player from actively seeking out a player with a more 'friendly' list. Many players at my FLGS go as far as having multiple lists, usually a competitive one, a fluffy one, and one to play 'new' players.

Absolutely. And everyone will have the most fun if they try their hardest to play games with likeminded individuals.

 TheCaptain wrote:
to put it bluntly, because a lot of 40k players happen to be socially stunted neckbeards

Well, that's certainly true!

Ok, I'm just a random lurker, but I feel like I have something to say about this. 40k is a game. Games are about fun. And let's face it, there are a lot of units in a lot of codexes that just aren't good. Like Possessed for example. Now, if someone really enjoys using Possessed, they have every right to use them without getting flak from anyone, because that's how they enjoy the game. But, at it's core, 40k is a competitive game. Whether you "play for fun" or are a tournament player is completely irrelevant. You play against other people: by definition it is a competitive game. Now, back to the guy in the first example. He should play his Possessed if he wants to, but the guy is still playing a competitive game, and if he is willingly and knowingly bringing a knife to a gunfight, he has no right getting mad at his opponent for bringing a gun. Playing someone who enjoys the game the same way as you is always the best option.

 snooggums wrote:


Why should I actively gimp myself just to please the other player who is likely complaining about something that isn't even correct because they don't understand the rules? Is it really unreasonable to assume the other player should bring a basic understanding of the rules when they play instead of just going with whatever interpretation they happen to come across that helps their own army?

It isn't to say that whining can be perfectly avoided by toning down or 'going easy', but if you truly tried to keep your "cheese" low and were respectful the entire game, then what is important is that by every fair standard you were a good opponent; then any complaints can be simply attributed to your opponent being a poor sport that should be avoided.

Then again, I've never felt right complaining at all. If a player tables me or overwhelms me with cheese, I don't blame him. He obviously had a better list than me; it is my fault my list wasn't up to his speed.

People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.

That is to say that they are illogical babies.

Good first post!

bardiel0192 wrote:
if he is willingly and knowingly bringing a knife to a gunfight, he has no rights getting mad at his opponent for bringing a gun.

By the same token, knowingly taking a gun to a knife fight is a bit of a dick move.

You're right, playing with like minded people is the best option, but when not possible I think it's only reasonable for everyone to compromise. Don't take a knife to a gunfight, and don't take a gun to a knifefight. Both of them should try and meet somewhere in the middle.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 snooggums wrote:


Why should I actively gimp myself just to please the other player who is likely complaining about something that isn't even correct because they don't understand the rules? Is it really unreasonable to assume the other player should bring a basic understanding of the rules when they play instead of just going with whatever interpretation they happen to come across that helps their own army?

It isn't to say that whining can be perfectly avoided by toning down or 'going easy', but if you truly tried to keep your "cheese" low and were respectful the entire game, then what is important is that by every fair standard you were a good opponent; then any complaints can be simply attributed to your opponent being a poor sport that should be avoided.

Then again, I've never felt right complaining at all. If a player tables me or overwhelms me with cheese, I don't blame him. He obviously had a better list than me; it is my fault my list wasn't up to his speed.

People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.

That is to say that they are illogical babies.

This is the type of SM list I would field (except a whirlwind in place of the Predator because that is what I had at the time) for pickup games: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/471491.page I posted it up today before I started to redo the paint job.

 TheCaptain wrote:
People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.

That is to say that they are illogical babies.

I can't agree with that, as it implies that having a strong list is preferrable to having a weak list.

Both are valid ways to play the game, and both types of list should compromise to meet somewhere in the middle. The best option is for people with weak lists to only play likeminded people, and vice versa for people with strong lists, but for mixed groups and pick-up games, it's only reasonable to expect everyone to have a bit of compromise.

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.

That is to say that they are illogical babies.

I can't agree with that, as it implies that having a strong list is preferrable to having a weak list.

Both are valid ways to play the game, and both types of list should compromise to meet somewhere in the middle. The best option is for people with weak lists to only play likeminded people, and vice versa for people with strong lists, but for mixed groups and pick-up games, it's only reasonable to expect everyone to have a bit of compromise.

It's not to say that it's preferrable, but if a player is knowingly fielding a weak list, they have to make certain concessions, frequent victory being one of those.

Playing fluffy is one thing; there are still ways to have a competitive, fluffy list; albeit not as competitive as one outright ignoring or disregarding fluff.

Continuing with the examples of IG; if you want to run a fluffy footguard list, go right ahead, but run it well; use powerblobs, use good special weapons, and have some tank/transport support (IE. Cadian 8th, arguably one of the most famous Infantry Regiments). You may not win all your battles, but a fluffy list can still win games if you're smart about it.

If you reject special weapons, vehicles, special characters, and simply run 200 lasgun-guardsmen, well...you either have poorly written fluff, or your fluff better include your regiment losing every engagement horrifically.

 Kaldor wrote:
Good first post!

bardiel0192 wrote:
if he is willingly and knowingly bringing a knife to a gunfight, he has no rights getting mad at his opponent for bringing a gun.

By the same token, knowingly taking a gun to a knife fight is a bit of a dick move.

You're right, playing with like minded people is the best option, but when not possible I think it's only reasonable for everyone to compromise. Don't take a knife to a gunfight, and don't take a gun to a knifefight. Both of them should try and meet somewhere in the middle.

I agree to a point. If two players agree to a nice, chill game and one of them brings his Terminators-pouring-out-of-every-orifice Draigowing list, then yeah, he's a dick. But I would think that with 40k being a competitive game, everyone would assume it was a gunfight. I guess for me it really all depends on how the other player approaches it. Like, if a dude I was playing told me he wasn't running a super competitive list, I would probably think that I don't need all of those Long Fangs or Oblits, but if that same player takes one look at my SW and immediatly starts crying cheese, I intend to tune his ass up....that situation is taking place in a world where I'm actually good at 40k of course.

EDIT: or....exactly what TheCaptain said in the previous post....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TrickyTaco wrote:


200% this. When my footslogging orks (that I run because it's the models I have, and it's usually fun to play) get blasted apart by 15+ missile launchers sitting inside a bastion within two or three turns I don't see how I could have enjoyed myself. Sure I could tailor a list against it, but that would require models I don't have, and I can't afford to go buy a new model every week. I don't need to win to enjoy myself, but I DO need to at least have a chance. Obviously, winning is better though.

What you're talking about is less of a problem with the players and more of a problem with the game itself, but that's another discussion entirely.

I'm a casual gamer of a different breed I guess.

I'm currently working on my Ork army.An army I chose specifically to have fun with.

All the units are something I wanted to paint.There is little to no synergy, tactics or guile.

The army will be based on a Speed Freek fuel depot. The terrain for my table will enhance this theme.

Just a quick rundown of units and the reason I chose them:

Warboss (Thinking about using the FW Grotbot to make the Big Mek look more important). By taking him I can use a squad of Nobs as troops. This means less boys to paint.

Big Mek. This army is his. He's in charge of maintaining the Ork vehicles and equipment.

Grots (2 units of 15). Every Mek Shop needs a swarm of gretchin hard at work.

Nobz. As mentioned before, less boys.

Boys. One unit of 12. In a trukk because they're supposed to be Speed Freeks (and the boss needs someone to kick around).

Deffdread and 2 Kanz. Current projects the Mek is working on.

Dakkajet. My terrain will include an air-strip. Reconisance vehicle for the Mek Shop.

Deffkoptaz. See above.

Burnaz in a looted wagon (Da Burny Bus). The Mek needs help with all the metal cutting and welding.

Lootaz. They watch the skys for trouble (they just forget to watch the horizon sometimes).

A Battlewagon. The Meks ride.

You'll notice this list is horrible. But it will be beautiful. And full of units that do interesting things... minus the Boyz.

My plan is to lose... alot. But at least thats's my intentions. I want to have fun with my small band of Orks defending their gas pumps from waves of enemies.

They army (and table) will have a clear theme and my opponents will feel like they really are attacking a poorly defended Ork outpost.

Before choosing this army I was concidering Orcs and Goblins purely to make a list that included as much ramdom die rolls as possible. Just so I couldn't control my own army.

This is purely a fluffy army except one problem. Why would a Boss and Nobz just guard an outpost when there's fightin' goin' on somewhere else?.

Didn't read the whole thread but what strikes me from the OP is - shouldn't the fluffy players, never caring about winning or loosing, be euphoric about facing an all flyers list? What a story, entire army bombarded to hell but trying their best, or if chaos laughing madly and dancing between laser shots etc. WAAC is happy, HAAC is happy, joy - "Wow you tabled me, thanks man, was an absolute blast!"

And no, don't blame the nerd and the nerdy hobby, blame GW. It's them who written those easily abusable, unbalanced rules. "We should all make a gentle list because we all know the balance is crap to the point of unplayable, let's fix the game for GW through not finding best possible combinations but just throw what we like and see what happens". Really what a sad game.

Btw I ran 3 carnifexes in 5th edition, just I hate the anti competitive mindset and the idea of WAAC, I play numerous games and meet over ambitious people all the time bt guess what, I like it because they often give me hard matches and those are the rare occasions I'm happy if winning, seeing how unberable the loss is for the guy, natural born winner. But, the hard match is where you learn the most and if you learn nothing because you had no chance, the game is just crap. Last time I checked the "WAAC lists" were legal.

Competitive gamers have a greater tendency (if they care about fluff) to make fluff fit their list, not the other way around.
Casual gamers make their list fit the fluff.

Both don't like losing and casual gamers will lose more frequently against competitive gamers because competitive players 'exploit' broken rules (ie Plague Bomb, wound shenanigans, Hammerhand Halberds, etc) and the simple fact that the fluff is not entirely accurately represented in the rules.

Oh, and the OP bragging about how he drinks constantly, is a frat boy, and lies to girls is both hilarious and pathetic. This is the wrong thread for that.

 Amaya wrote:


Oh, and the OP bragging about how he drinks constantly, is a frat boy, and lies to girls is both hilarious and pathetic. This is the wrong thread for that.

It was a joke playing to the idea of breaking concepts, you smelly neckbeard. Not to mention I said I drink d6 days a week. Who's to say it's not always 1, and my rolls are just pathetic? Then again, you found it hilarious, so even if it was due to your own self-imposed ignorance and judgmental stereotyping, you are welcome. Though even if it was true, by taking it the way you did, you directly miss the point of the thread in that we all have fun differently, and a good human being accepts that and learns to co-exist with it.

And the term is Fraternity Man. Frat boy is derogatory.

I believe that "We should all get along and enjoy 40k together" even though its something a hippy would say.

But seriously though, wargaming is meant to be about fun, not who wins.
For example my last game would be a less lot friendly if not for stuff like "ah okay its only 1/2" difference, just shoot that rokkit launcha" or my opponent after knocking over my assault marines placing them slightly further.
Whats the point of playing just to win? unless its some kind of a tournament the only thing you will get for winning is satisfaction.

Thread terminated; it's getting pretty snarky in here.