Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 00:26:46


Post by: EasyE


I saw someone say this on a thread the other day and I really liked it. It was something about a list with a bunch of Lashes and Plague Marines, basically something entirely not-fluff, and a total 'power build'.

Are most people only concerned with making an uber-list or do people actually include fluff into their play. All these lists spamming Special Characters (Vulcan, Eldrad) or mixed chaos cults sort of grinds my gears. It's not my right to tell people what they can and cannot play, but I don't have to play against someone if they're only in the game to with with their list that is clearly against background. In most my games we don't use Special Characters, and I am loathe to play a list with or against Special Characters for the ridiculousness that they bring to the table.

Does anyone else feel the same way, or am I totally alone on this? Are most people out to play the game for a winning list, or are they out to make a competitive list based on the material provided. Yriel would be fine in an Iyanden list, but why is he marching with random craftworld #72, and why is Eldrad with him for that matter. To me it makes little sense for Plague Marines to be lead by a pair of slannesh sorcerers. The same goes for SM SCs.

Should people respect the background of the race that they play instead of making only a powerbuild?

Please discuss and share your opinion, but I would like it to stay civil.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 00:30:34


Post by: Cheese Elemental


I know where you're coming from. Most people who played with the old Chaos codex feel that way, I imagine. 40K has sadly started to favour power builds, mostly because the codex writers seem to have conflicting views. Fzorgle is a good example. It doesn't fit well with the rules, and wasn't designed with any foresight as to how abusive it is.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 00:34:51


Post by: Lorgar's_Blessed


I play with a lot of people who build 'lists' not armies. One friend plays chaos and sure enough has the dual lash + PM. So annoying.

A personal pet peeve of mine is how people play nids as well. I'll see six fex's set up, yeah that's alright. Then I'll see somewhere like 120 gaunts all ready. Cool. I'll see warriors and tyrants as well. Fantastic... Then he decides to deep strike in the Genestealers and I'm like "WHAT THE HELL!" Do you not know what a genestealer is? They come in BEFORE the assault and do the dirty, not AFTER. READ SOME FLUFF!

But yeah, it's annoying. I play Nids myself and use my stealers with scuttlers, but they move along cover. People call me an idiot but I like the idea of them all coming in and assaulting before anything else even gets to shoot. Meh, choices choices. My chaos list has no marks aside from Chaos Glory and only uses standard CSM, no cults. I play Word Bearers so this is fine. I once was asked why I don't use cult troops and make them different to represent people who worship a god more closely. I answer, "Because Word Bearers worship them equally and I prefer my fluffy list that CAN win over a non-fluffy list that WILL ALWAYS win." I get strange looks then and I tell them to ready an army... I usually win.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 00:35:56


Post by: Squig_herder


I whole heartly agree, this is how i "collect" armies, i just grab a dex and read the fluff and start writting my own and collect that way. The only problem is i like so much fluff across all races which is why i dont have a complete army lol


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 00:57:51


Post by: youbedead


In regards to sc's, what if i were to use wazdakka in my all warbike army. Not nob biker but regular bikers


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:03:13


Post by: JD21290


Ill use a power build ish army at tourneys (maybe a small unit of nob bikers or massed lootas)
but usually i tend to take units i like the look of.
dont really care if a unit is amazing, if it looks like gak then i dont want it.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:05:21


Post by: Gwar!


Having 10 years of Loving Space Wolf Experiance, I have to say, "Make an Army, not a List" is one of the things that has kept me in the hobby. it is just so much more enjoyable.

The sad part here though, is that the Majority of players are like it, but the TFG's get a lot more spotlight and are a lot more Vocal


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:10:03


Post by: Orkestra


@Youbedead:

I think that what he's talking about is wanting special characters to show up in themed armies, rather than power armies.

So taking advantage of Wazdakka's special rule (and his fluff) to make a warbike army would be totally okay. Especially if the rest of your choices were either fast (trukk mobs, koptas, etc.) or Mek-style (since it's only so far from tuning up your bikes to looting that nice red tank over there.)

The thing that the OP seems to be against are things like, to use the Chaos example, Kharn leading several squads of Noise Marines. Things that don't connect with the fluff at all, but are quite powerful in game, so are used.


As tot he rest of the issue, I'm kind of on the fence about it. I mean, the fluff is one of the main reasons I play. I love the richly created worlds. However, it's still a game, and at the core of all that story and excellent (usually) writing there's a set of rules for how to play a game. Which, while not exactly the be-all-end-all, are pretty damn important. I'm not going to get in a tiff about it, especially if it's fluff that seems to have vanished (I.E. Cult Animosity.) but it is certainly gratifying to see lists built to a common theme and idea, other than 'I wanna stomp my opponent'.

TL;DR version.
Fluff is good, but you have to let people who play for the game, play for the game. Doesn't mean 'playing to the fluff' is wrong,' but it's not the only way.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:37:56


Post by: Nurglitch


I'd be inclined to agree with players that it would be nice if the allowable army builds matched the backgrounds, but the problem is that the background really needs to be all things to all people. Personally I've given up on the 40k universe and prefer making up my own and reading similar work by other people to the official fluff, though the official fluff is good for flavour and a starting point or skeleton on which to hang something a little more solid and interesting.

But I also don't have a problem with people that want to design a list that they think is super-stompy because those lists are only super-stompy depending on the local meta-game, and then it's either Rock-Scissors-Paper or people move on to less obvious tactics. Mind you, the interesting thing that I'm finding these days is that the internet meta-game is catching up to what my Toronto gaming group figured out within weeks of 5th edition coming out.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:47:56


Post by: Kid_Kyoto


Pure BS.

First off armies ain't free. They cost money. They cost time. And plenty of both.

Second off, GW writes the rules and the background, their inability or unwillingness to have the two match up is the real problem.

Third, GW changes the fluff to sell more models. Now they're not as bad as say DC comics rewriting history every 3 weeks, but they'll change things from book to book, ignore ideas, raise new ones all to sell more models.

So telling other players to spend money and time to match an arbitrary set of rules the creators of the game didn't feel like including and which the creators will change on a whim is nothing but pure arrogance.

Anyone who REALLY cares about the fluff would only allow Marines (of any sort) to be used in 10% of the games and force players to spend 90% of the games with Orks, Nids and IG, the most numerous armies in the galaxy.

Any takers?

Now I do believe that players should stay away from cheesey lists. That's different.

Cheesey lists exploit the inherent imbalances to create an army that's not fun for either player to face in a game. But that's based on the principal that we should have fun, not someone's arbitrary understanding of GW's novels, comic books and so on.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:51:21


Post by: Gwar!


You are in the wrong hobby then IMO. I don't play this game for the "game", I mostly play because I enjoy the Background. The Game is an Added Bonus


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:53:07


Post by: JD21290


Gwar is pretty much the same as me, a casual gamer.
Mostly enjoy other aspects of it, for him its the fluff, for me its painting and converting


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 01:55:58


Post by: Gwar!


JD21290 wrote:Gwar is pretty much the same as me, a casual gamer.
Mostly enjoy other aspects of it, for him its the fluff, for me its painting and converting
Don't get me wrong, I Like playing the game as well, and I like Playing in Competitive Environments as well. I just happen to prefer "fluffy" lists. I may not win against Broken Newer Lists (Space Wolves Vs Anything except Dark Eldar is pretty much Skewed towards them, especially since I play Full Drop Pod Wolves, using -gasp- Infantry rather than Land Raider Spam), but I still win sometimes, and I love it when some Smug Arse who has a Dual Lash List Suddenly has 2 Dreadnoughts Drop Podding right Next to their Two Lashers and unleashing hell


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:04:06


Post by: ph34r


All of my lists have been "fluffy" lists. I play with a small group of friends, so I don't have to deal with people bringing tournament armies to friendly games. When I make an army I think fluff first, and then make a list based on that. I try to make my list effective, as long as it is still within my fluff.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:14:17


Post by: JD21290


and I love it when some Smug Arse who has a Dual Lash List Suddenly has 2 Dreadnoughts Drop Podding right Next to their Two Lashers and unleashing hell



Im guessing thats the same look i see when i drop a pod with 9 death company and a chappy near anything

Even better when they realise that the unit only costs 175 points.
(50 for pod, 125 for chappy)

And what!? rending and feel no pain?


This is why i love blood angels, real combat monsters instead of those soft smurf boyz


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:14:58


Post by: malfred


Sounds like you're valuing one style of play over another.

Perhaps making an army not a list will make more sense once GW makes an actual game...


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:19:35


Post by: number9dream


Plenty of room for both..

EDIT: To clarify, I mean that you should do what you want, depending on what you want to get out of the game. If you want to only play balls-to-the-walls competitive, you find a group of likeminded individuals, if you want to play fluffy games, again, you find people that feel the same way.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:24:56


Post by: Polonius


First off, to the OP: I"m not a big fan of ring and run. It's pretty tacky to post a thread starter that is morally indignant and bombastic, including such even handed phrases as "Heinous crimes against the fluff" and then ask people to keep it civil. When read, your post seems to read: "I play the morally proper way, in which strict adherence to fluff (or at least those aspects that I favor) should govern list construction. Is that good or bad?"

Secondly, this was discussed in some detail in the thread on chaos players and the fluff. To sum up a few key points:

1) Special characters are archetypes of which the named persona is merely an exemplar. Every craftworld has a master psyker, every chapter has a master of weaponry, and every IG regiment has a top notch tactical genius that specializes in outflanking. Keep in mind that standard characters have far fewer options in the current books compared to 3rd edition.

2) Enforcing the old Chaos Animosity rules doesn't make as much sense as those elements are neither in the current Chaos Codex's background or in the rules. Previous books essentially had unlocking choices, and taking certain HQ's allowed certain troops. that's not the case anymore, and expecting Chaos to restrict itself to an unwritten rule is asinined, when no other codex faces that.

3) The fluff in 40k is very, very big. The Nidzilla lists that people decry, do you know where the first mentions of the possibility come from? Not Dakka, or Warseer, it was in White Dwarf. GW said that it was possible to build an all big bugs list out of the new Nid book, and mentioned that it represented a seige breaker or heavy combat unit. It was poo-poohed by competitive players until the Dakka Fex was figured out it became good. Now, despite it being pushed by GW itself as a fluffy list, it's a travesty. My point is that it's hard to call anything done well "impossible" under the fluff.

4) Context is important. If you're playing a campaign, I think it's fairer to expect more thematic lists than at an RTT. I've got no beef with somebody that says "I don't' want to play certain builds, because they're not fun," at casual play, but in a tournament, people bring the heat.

5) Much of the bellyaching by background favoring hobbyists is pretty clearly sour grapes. Now, nobody likes to lose games all the time, but there are some options other than running the same old list with the same tactics, then complaining that everybody else is playing cheese. You can ask people to bring softer lists or for a handicap (20% more points, say). You can create custom missions that fit your army. You can play more narrative driven games. The point is, there is no moral high ground because you're playing a gimpy list and expect everybody to respect it. If you want to play it, that's cool, but either man up and ask for an assist or take your beatings like a man.

6) The fundamental problem with the philosophy that armies should be built to the fluff is that it's totally subjective. Nobody has come close to articulating a proper standard for judging if an army is thematic enough, or fluffy enough, or overly power gamed. It is, more often than not, "that thing keeps beating me, I refuse to change how I play or learn how to beat it, and thus I shall call it improper."



"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:31:16


Post by: 99MDeery


It depends, I have armies that I build purely for tournaments which are based on a list that gets tweaked.

I have other armies like my Guard and Marines that I have gone with a concept in both cases mechanized and picked units that fit in with that theme, everything in my marine army is either a tank, in a transport or got a jump pack. I use special characters in them however they are my own personal takes on the characters, I've built my own custom Shrike because I dont play Raven Guard I play Hawk Lords and Shrike + all the tanks fit in with the theme of being dropped off by Thunderhawk ( I see it as all of the tanks are dropped in by Thunderhawk Transporters and they then drive off towards their objective) and in my Guard army I use Marbo, mainly because its fun having Rambo in your army and i'm converting him to look like a black ops stealther (kind of Solid Snake crossed with a Cadian) to represent him so he fits in with my Cadian Mech army.

Once the theme is picked I will restrict myself to those kind of units etc however my casual armies tend to become collections, tournament armies tend to just be built to 1500pts and left at that.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:36:27


Post by: George Spiggott


"If it's not ok it shouldn't be an option" - Pete Haines

Smart bloke was Pete Haines much more so than he's given crdit for.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:49:14


Post by: EasyE


To Polonius: Unfortunately sarcasm doesn't translate well to text. Maybe I should have thrown a /S in there. I even said above that it is not my right to tell another player what they can and cannot do. All I said is if I don't like it, I can choose wether or not I will play with them. As for calling me morally indignant, thank you for keeping it civil.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 02:55:08


Post by: Kid_Kyoto


Gwar! wrote:You are in the wrong hobby then IMO. I don't play this game for the "game", I mostly play because I enjoy the Background. The Game is an Added Bonus


Then play Dark Heresy, or Inquisitor.

40k the table top game created to sell models reflects only a tiny part of the fluff and doesn't even do taht well.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 03:07:33


Post by: Polonius


EasyE wrote:To Polonius: Unfortunately sarcasm doesn't translate well to text. Maybe I should have thrown a /S in there. I even said above that it is not my right to tell another player what they can and cannot do. All I said is if I don't like it, I can choose wether or not I will play with them. As for calling me morally indignant, thank you for keeping it civil.


Your welcome, unless you again forgot your little sarcasm thing. If you did, then you need to realize that you posted about how you were upset about the conduct of others, specifically in that people violate a taboo of the community. I'm sorry, I can't think of a more polite way to state what you were doing. You were, by defintion, indignant, about an issue that lay in the area of morals. Perhaps I could have said "fairly aggresively critical of people's behavior when it violates a traditional more" instead of morally indignant, but I appreciate brevity.

You clearly didn't read my post, because I was commenting that your original post wasn't a really fair question. It's called begging the quesiton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question, and in it, you essentially asserted as a premise the idea that building to fluff is good and power gaming is bad.

Oh, and by the way, I actually responded to the substance of your question as well. I'm guessing you're more interested in hearing commentary from those that agree with you, but on the off chance you were curious, I listed some points.

On a slightly different point, I think about theme a lot when I build my armies, but that's during the buying, modeling, painting part of it. When I create a list, I want to do well in the game I'm playing. If it's a fun game for teaching a noob, I take a very different list than if I'm going to a Hard Boys.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 03:25:57


Post by: Crazy_Carnifex


To the OP
As much as I would enjoy participateing in your poll, I find that the only answer that would come near my oppinion is simply to insultingly phrased to merit clicking.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 04:11:37


Post by: Ratbarf


I think lists should be tailored to the situation. If I am playing against one of the harder players in the area I will bring my harder list. When I go to the FLGS I generally bring an optimized army within restrictions. As in I don't intentionally go for the things that I am told are over the top. Like landraider spam or dread spam. I will however make an army with two landraiders and a bunch of rhinoed tac squads if I am going for an armoured assault theme. I might go for a bunch of dreads if I am going for an iron hands theme. (though I don't think they even use a large number of dreads but metal zombie somehow fits methinks)

I try to tailor my army to where and what I am playing.

As to fluff builds vs power builds, a great comparison would be Flames of War. Where nearly all armies must be made to a certain level of fluff because the rules demand it. You can't really create historically inaccurate armies as the army list has been created to a certain level of historical accuracy. There are certainly power builds within those lists, but it is far more acceptable to do so in a regular game of FoW than 40k.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 04:43:33


Post by: Jerjare


I agree. My friend and I make armies based on what we think are cool units, and often pit our unwittingly 'crappy' armys' elements against each other. Personally I feel its more fun.

My friend uses swooping hawks in his eldar army, because he really likes the pieplate they drop. Sure mathammer wise its not all that effective but its sort of a 'trademark' of his. In his necron army he runs mostly Necron Warriors (this was back in 3rd/4th edition) and since both of us were essentially warhammer nubs- we didn't have any rule nazis or powergamers playing us to ruin our good time- we stumped each other with tactics some players would think were 'stupid' or 'waste of points'.

I guess now you wouldn't think that Warrior spam would be that hard to deal with, but it had a definite psychological effect on me, and it was ominous to see half the guys I knock down get back up again. Everything I shot was either too weak, or not enough good stuff.

I think it also goes to how armies can be fun to play when you don't yet know all the paper-scissors-rock metagame yet. Imagine a tournament where 10 players were given 10 never-before-seen armies/codecies, and have to put together an army having no idea how well it will work nor have any idea what they are up against. THOSE are the fun battles, in my opinion.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 04:51:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


"Make an army, not a list" sounds very similar to the "Play the game, not the rules" phrase that the Amazing K gave us a few years ago. It's an equally as hollow statement made to allow others to stand on their Soap Boxes of Superior Morality +1 and look down upon those who enjoy playing competitively. It also implies that one cannot have a themed/fluffy army that is also a good list, and is one of the reasons why the casual-gamer mafia of Dakka must be stopped at all costs (especially those of them that instantly refer to any competative or tournament gamer as a WAAC player as a 'get out of making a valid argument free' card).

*ahem*

Of course, that's only when such a phrase is wielded as a weapon to bash a viewpoint over other people's heads - which I don't think the OP is doing - and as it happens I actually do agree with the sentiment. For quite a while now most of our group has been building armies, not lists. I want my "army" to do X, so I'll go and build the best "list" I can to fit that theme. So if a friend of mine wants to do a heavily bike-themed army, he'll go and make a bike-themed army. It will still be hard-as-nails and competative, but he won't start with the competative goal and end with the theme, it's the other way around.

For me I design a list around an idea that interests me. I might decide that one week I like Hellhounds, so I'm going to take three Hellhounds, and then I'll try and build a list that works around that. My current fixation is my Inquisitorial force, and the fact that I finally, after all these years, have the Valkyries to play them as AirCav. So, even though I know Inquisitorial Storm Troopers aren't very good, I'm going to do it anyway because my theme is that my Inquisi army has access to the best technology, so the Chimeras stay with my Cadians and the Valks go to my Stormies. And then the other units in the army will be geared around supporting this (doomed!) formation and hopefully giving it some ability to fight back once the Stormies have been slaughtered and the Valks shot down.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 05:12:23


Post by: karnaeya


Karnaeya sees dual lash list.

"I know you, your from the internet."

I dont really have a problem playing any list. IF the guy has modelled it all out.

But wargamers myself included are a pretty whingey lot. So anything that isnt perfect IE everything will get complained about.

But the most obvious thing to me is people aren't expressing themsleves in real life. Cause if someone came to me with dual lash and I didn't wanna play them. Then I wouldnt .. it that simple. Tournements you can mark them down on sports. And you should of brought something hard yourself at a tournie.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 05:16:44


Post by: Gornall


There's a time and place for fluffy, casual armies and one for power lists and/or refined/tweaked list. If I'm just going to the FLGS to kill an afternoon, I'll put together a list that suits my fancy for the day, whether it be fast mech and bikes, slow and steady armor advance, or something wacky like SM Scout spam. However, if I'm going to step into a competitive arena, I'm sure as heck going to have my list as refined, tweaked, and optimized as much as possible. That doesn't mean I can't run a fairly themed army, but it does mean that my theme better be able to hold it's own against some tough competitors.

And special character spam seems to be the way things are headed in 5th. A lot of SCs just give way too much utility to be ignored completely (Vulkan). At least many of them tend to lead to fairly themed and/or fluffy lists (Khan on bike).


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 05:21:29


Post by: Caffran9


So if you want to build an army, where do you start? I'm going to go out on alimb here and say the initial planning phase includes a list! All of my armies start with a core list, which is then expanded upon.

My Chaos army started as a standard dual lash list and has been steadily expanding since then. So sue me if I decided to play something competitive in order to keep up with the Nob Bikes and Crusher spam at my local store. My group has a tendency to play strong armies with tournaments in mind (our fun games are still often played with strong lists, but we have a blast playing and that is what is important) and that is that. We are by no means doing it wrong because we like to play with the strong armies that we are likely to see should we attend tournaments.

FWIW we are also willing and capable of building lists that many of you would consider to be more "fun" (I put it in quotes because to my group, fun is strong/competitive armies) and do so regularly when playing with people outside of our group in non-tournament environments.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 05:23:39


Post by: CoachNitro


Unfortunately with Power Codex's like the new IG and Space Marines, they kind of force non fluff lists. I try my best to use fluff, but to stay competitive I feel I need to just play for power.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 05:43:03


Post by: youbedead


H.B.M.C. wrote:"Make an army, not a list" ... the casual-gamer mafia of Dakka must be stopped at all costs (especially those of them that instantly refer to any competative or tournament gamer as a WAAC player as a 'get out of making a valid argument free' card).


[Insert godfather music}]

Coming this summer

They think they are invinsible.

They think that they rule this forum.

well now H.B.M.C. is going to show the gamer mafia that they're not above the law

In the undakkables


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 06:23:29


Post by: Arm


I want to state from the start...I like fluff. That is why I like the Space Marines.

But....

Play the game you want to play. By that I mean ask the player how they play their list. If you do not like it then tell them to move over to the next table. If you do not have that option, alter your list in some way.

For me, just as long as their list is not broken it does not matter. The game is a game of tactics and strategy. Part of that consists of how you build your army list and the rest is how you play it (the dice gods of course come into this along the way). The order in which one unit in your army attacks after another is not relevant. That is tactical. The tactics are a part of the fluff I will grant you that, but tactics CHANGE!

There has been power gaming in one way or the other for a long time. Even back in the early days of this game there would have been army lists built with the best possible chances of winning. I mean come on, if most people could not win a few games a month, would they (or you maybe) still enjoy the game? Would you/they keep on playing a fluff army and loose 8/10? Would you or them learn anything? You just keep on loosing. The thrill of winning makes a large part of any competative game. And you have to face facts folks, Warhammer is a competative game.

Poker, black jack, warmachine, World of Warcraft, Diablo, TF2.....you have a chance to win (items, the game etc) in all of these.

I don't know. Maybe we should designate a table in our clubs for fluff armies only.

For me, well, I intend to have 4 squads of tactical marines as my core army along with the generic chapter master. I love em. They look good and I love a gun line. Also the marines to me signify a mass of armor clad, gun toting, geneticaly jacked up, hyper active, pious, self rightouse do gooders. A mass of guns and bodies. See....fluff.

The other guy can do what he wants. Just as long as it is not cheating.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 11:34:57


Post by: Hammerziet


EasyE wrote: Yriel would be fine in an Iyanden list, but why is he marching with random craftworld #72, and why is Eldrad with him for that matter.


Why would Eldrad be with anyone considering he is dead? If you're going to follow the background to the letter no one should ever use Eldrad.

But really you can make up your own background and justify anything you want.

For example the Eldrad and Yriel situation you can say that Yriel's space fleet was passing through and saw random craftworld #72 was in trouble so he lends a hand. And Eldrad although he is dead his spirit now wanders through the webway popping up here and there. Helping out by fixing leaks, taking out the rubbish, helping old Eldar ladies cross the street and blowing up space marine commander's brains. You know because he is just awesome like that.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 14:50:19


Post by: EasyE


Just because you 'can' do something, doesn't mean you 'should' do something.

I guess my main thing is:

Why make a competitive list that breaks the fluff in half, when you could make another list almost exactly as competitive and keep the fluff entirely intact.

Of course, as all things are, subject to opinion.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 15:24:03


Post by: malfred


EasyE wrote:Just because you 'can' do something, doesn't mean you 'should' do something.

I guess my main thing is:

Why make a competitive list that breaks the fluff in half, when you could make another list almost exactly as competitive and keep the fluff entirely intact.

Of course, as all things are, subject to opinion.


GW should make it so you can have competitive fluffy lists then.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 15:30:40


Post by: H.B.M.C.


malfred wrote:GW should make it so you can have competitive fluffy lists then.


They did that three times:

Iron Warriors
Codex: Armageddon Black Templars
Codex: Armageddon Speed Freaks

All three were considered 'broken'.

People are never happy.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 15:46:22


Post by: Waaaaaaagh!


H.B.M.C. wrote:
malfred wrote:GW should make it so you can have competitive fluffy lists then.


They did that three times:

Iron Warriors
Codex: Armageddon Black Templars
Codex: Armageddon Speed Freaks

All three were considered 'broken'.

People are never happy.
2nd Edition Spess Wolevs Too


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 16:42:43


Post by: Kid_Kyoto


H.B.M.C. wrote:
malfred wrote:GW should make it so you can have competitive fluffy lists then.


They did that three times:

Iron Warriors
Codex: Armageddon Black Templars
Codex: Armageddon Speed Freaks

All three were considered 'broken'.

People are never happy.


HBMC stole my answer.

Some lists are powerful.
Some are fluffy.
Some are both.

They're not opposites. The problem is that some armies get both, some get neither and for most of us you don't find out what you ahve until after spending $100s of dollars and 100s of hours.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 21:15:27


Post by: Dracos


Polonius wrote:I was commenting that your original post wasn't a really fair question. It's called begging the quesiton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question, and in it, you essentially asserted as a premise the idea that building to fluff is good and power gaming is bad.


I think Sir that you hit the nail on the head. This thread has been biased from the get go. Moreover, the OP is posting this on a forum used by those who are very enthusiastic about their hobby - an unlikely spot for a casual gamer (who I would think would be more likely to agree with you).


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 21:54:04


Post by: augustus5


Instead of starting a new thread about "the list" question; why not seek out gamers that play your prefered style?

You like a tough as nails army build it and play it with other people who enjoy gaming with you.

If you prefer a more casual approach play more casual players.

Ripping on competitive players isn't going to change the fact that they exist. Competitive players help drive the hobby by showing up at conventions to challenge each other. Web sites like this exist so players can exchange ideas and learn how to foil the "it" army of the moment.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 22:22:42


Post by: malfred


They're posting about it for validation.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 22:46:41


Post by: RustyKnight


EasyE wrote:
Why make a competitive list that breaks the fluff in half, when you could make another list almost exactly as competitive and keep the fluff entirely intact.

I don't believe I have ever seen a list that broke the fluff in half (Ancient Enemies are gone, let them rest in peace with the zoats).


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/25 22:53:42


Post by: Canonness Rory


I run a lash prince.

I also run 2 squads of noise marines and some chosen with Icon of slaanesh.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 00:15:16


Post by: Crazy_Carnifex


As far as I play, my rule is this: Play nothing I would not want to play. (No lurking off the board for half the bloody game, no Vampire Counts, no sticking everybody in a transport and playing keep away, etc.) I do not care if I get Thrashed, but I try to prevent it as much as possible, I preffer to have fun while loseing.

I also am not fond of "Generic Special Characters", though don't really care if you play them.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 00:26:14


Post by: combo


Maybe its my self improvement mentality but im constantly trying to improve myself in all walks of life, and one of the best ways to improve yourself is to challange yourself.

because of this i have no problem in fielding any list no matter how "unfluffy" it is, to me limitting myself to a self imposed restriction will just limit my ability to improve myself.

Dont think I don't enjoy the fluff, I write fan Fiction and hope to eventually be a BL author, I just think that the differences between the storyline and the table top is already so different (ie the varying power levels of marines) that being true to the source material in game is impossible.




"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 01:22:40


Post by: SirRouga


When it comes to "make an army not a list", I just believe that people shouldn't just play an army for one list but the play the army on a whole.

Its not about using super competitive lists or fluffy lists, that kind of thing is more about what type of other players you play with and your own personally style. If you enjoy playing on the tournament high power level and so do the people that you against then by all means go crazy with your games. If you like armies that have rich back stories and massive amounts of fluff and do the other people you play against then once again go crazy! Just realize that not all players are the same and try to make sure BOTH players have fun, I say 90% of players actually realize this but there are those that never seem to notice the other player in the game. Those 10% are an other problem all together but that's for an other topic.

I'm also not talking about people just getting in the hobby, starting a new army, or don't have an army big enough to field larger armies. Every army starts somewhere and often only have a bare requirements. But the thing is you build from there and grow your army. I personally don't have enough Orks to field multiple different lists of 2000 point games (I like 1000 - 1500 point games anyways) and I'm still working on building it (ever so slowly...)

Now what I'm talking about are people that ONLY play that one specific list and when that one list becomes boring to them then they drop the entire army. In practice the usually cases are power tournament builds but its not always the case.

To give a perfect example of this let me share a story of an actual player at my FLGS.
When I started visiting the club there, he was playing Grey Knights using the 3 Land Raider build. Then he got bored of that list...
Then he dropped the Grey Knights and went Blood Angels. Lots of Assault Troops and with Dante. Then he got bored of that list...
Now he is playing Chaos Marines. With as many Oblits and Berserkers as he can for his World Eater army....


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 01:37:45


Post by: malfred


What if the codex only has one playable build or only one playable build that is of interest to you?


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 01:48:49


Post by: Cheese Elemental


Then you throw it out, log onto the internet, and find some porn instead.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 01:51:29


Post by: malfred


Cheese Elemental wrote:Then you throw it out, log onto the internet, and find some porn instead.


To quote three wise men.

"I don't believe in Internet porn.
It's so wrong, it's reprehensible.

And it wastes your whole day."


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 01:52:31


Post by: Cheese Elemental


Who are the three wise men, your parents?


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 01:59:57


Post by: bigdaddydreadnought


IMHO you can have an army that is both refined and fluffy, for example, if i'm gonna field Kharn the betrayer at a tourney i would load in khorne berserkers, regular marines with mark/icon of khorne, my Obliterators, and my Chaos lord on a juggernaut with a bloodthirster, and some vehicles ETC. That way everything is good and buff but still fits fluff, just don't field two unique HQ, and make your other HQ(s) fit the same theme, now this is just for my CSM army, but i'm sure with a little studying and a few careful upgrades to fill in points other armies could pull things like this off too, now stop arguing and find a way to do it!


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 03:15:29


Post by: malfred


Cheese Elemental wrote:Who are the three wise men, your parents?





"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 03:19:08


Post by: plan9au



My Sisters of Battle army i have carefully built using a fluffy theme to dictate what units i take, i did this for me and my enjoyment, i like the challenge it gave me, i have a competetive list against most other players, although i lose more than i win i bear no ill-will to someone who power builds.

My CSM army again is built around a theme - again it's competitve but not a super army.

I like to win, but it's not the main focus of the hobby for me, the modeling and painting is why i play and games night give me an oppurtunity to show off what i can do. who am i to say that someone isnt taking the hobby serisouly or shouldn't be playing mearly because he takes something different from the hobby to me. I Like restricting myself in my choices, it means i need to think outside the box.

What i guess im trying to say is If you want to powergame - powergame
If you want a fluffy army then have a fluffy army - if they stick to the rules of the game and the codex then im ok with what ever you bring.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 04:42:54


Post by: artyboy


I could care less what's across the table from me. I don't mind playing power lists because it gives me the opportunity to figure out firsthand how to play against it. I play orks so anything I want to take is easy to explain away with fluff. One guy just a couple of weeks ago "accused" me of taking ridiculously fluffy lists that still manage to walk right through anything.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:13:10


Post by: skullkandy


I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


everything doesn't have to be completely up to fluff, but seeing people throw around "this unit is worthless, that unit is worthless, only take this one unit." because they have a .000012% of doing more damage gets really annoying and sucks all the fun out of the game.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:23:33


Post by: Polonius


skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:27:32


Post by: Flashman


Hobby will always have power lists around unless you create a game like chess were everybody has the same army (see also LOTR).

The lists are not as power build focused as they used to be (take a bow 2nd Edition) and at least basic stuff like Troops are now compulsory. They have even actively encouraged more Troop taking through the objective holding rule.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:28:41


Post by: skullkandy


Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.




I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:31:07


Post by: Hollismason


I own two redeemers I spent 50 bucks on these things I generally take one of them in my army because I like the model.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:32:14


Post by: Polonius


skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.




I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:53:46


Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable


It's funny how codices are divided between the Fluff and the List. I wonder if that's for a reason.

Just because fluff changes, doesn't mean that using new fluff is wrong. MIXING CHAOS IS A-OKAY. It's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: World Eaters or any of the others. If anything, I should be dinging people for not taking any straight CSM and taking big cult marine squads (though you'd be fine with all cult lists as long as they were mono-god). Get off your high horse and realize that Space Marines can take any combination of anything and be fluffy, CSM can't. Therefore, fluffiness can take a backseat to having an army I enjoy tactically (my reason for PLAYING A GAME). Feel free to make dioramas and care. Some others will, some won't.

Can you honestly tell me that the rules reflect the fluff to begin with? Invincible Space Marines? I quote from the Daemon Codex, "No enemy, no matter how strong or brave, can stand against the daemons of the warp?" So Daemons losing is unfluffy?


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 20:54:01


Post by: Belphegor


We don't play by the rules, we play by prison rules!
Damn it, now I have coffee in sinuses.

On Topic:
I'm a fan of the starting with a fluff direction:
   Unyielding Legion
   Heralds of the Nightbringer
   Awakening Tomb Swarm
Then adjust the elements of the force to become more competitive.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 21:26:07


Post by: skullkandy


Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.





I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


which is exactly why I avoid tournaments of any kind, because I get enjoyment out of playing the game, not just out of winning.

And I'm tired of hearing the excuse from powergamers (not specifically referring to you, just a follow up on the topic) that "It's how I play and you can't say you're way is better than my way." well yes I can, my way of playing is superior to munchkins. It's superior because it involves sportsmanship, respecting your opponent, making sure the game is fun for all involved (even the loser) instead of being a jerk who only plays when they know they will win and looks down on anyone who isn't willing to abuse grey areas for a cheap victory.

Lets use a simple example of working out. The person who goes to the gym every day and puts in an honest work out is superior to the one who shoots steroids every day. Yeah, the steroid user will look stronger and build more muscle, but they aren't following the spirit of the activity and are instead only obsessed with the end result.

Some philosophies are superior to others, they are not all equal. And the root character flaws that cause a gamer to power-list cause them to be of lower quality as gamers.


So gamers who stick to the spirit of the game are better than powergamers.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 21:31:45


Post by: Polonius


This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 21:33:14


Post by: fatal_GRACE


The thing that realy bothers me about this issue is that people who tend to make 'lists' rather than 'armies' tend to encourage others to do the same. As a Cult player (Khorne, khorne, and, what was that other one? Oh yeah, Khorne.), I find it exceptionally challenging to get good advice for my list within the fluff limitations I place on myself. It is amazing how often people will come in to a thread titled 'Death Guard blah-blah-blah' or 'World Eaters such-and-such' and tell you to replace your fluffy DPs with lash princes and replace all of your HS with Oblits.

The other thing about this that is irritating is the fact that people seem to think their list is new. If you post a dual lash, two PM squad, Oblit spam list, what's the point? You've seen it a million times, you know exactly what people are going to say, and your list is completely flavourless and unoriginal. If you want to play dual lash/oblit spam, there is no reason to bother asking for advice with it.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 21:49:08


Post by: Polonius


You know, in my expereince I've found that if you ask for specific advice, you tend to get that advice. So, if you post your POD list, asking for tweaks, you'll get it, while if you post a list using CSM saying that you want to max out their effectiveness, you get advice on how to do so.

I mean, when I play my Marines I generally play Tac Squad heavy, and I mention that I'm generally asking one or two specific questiosn about the list, rather than asking for general feedback (because the best advice for that list is to drop two tac squads and take a LRC and TH/SS termies).

On the other hand, I've given feedback on IG lists (whcih are sort of my specialty) only to have every suggestion get shot down as not within the theme. To some people, their theme requires every single upgrade they took, with no flexibility. That's not always true, but after a dozen or so times of trying to help a guy with a truly awful IG build only to be told that I can't actually adjust the list made me gunshy about offering help.





"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 22:10:51


Post by: djphranq


"Lists" have kind of pushed me away from the game. I mostly didn't like that models I had wouldn't get any playtime because they just didn't seem effective in the "list". I've actually moved away from playing and am going more into the fluff and modeling now.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 22:33:05


Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable


I'm also sick of the mentality that just because someone enjoys the game and not the fluff, they're an ass. Honestly, if you looked at my list and refused my game because it's not "fluffy" enough, you'd look like the biggest idiot ever. Not everyone who likes to have strong competition always has to win or always runs the exact same list. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their geritol and take a nap.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 22:50:59


Post by: Polonius


I have a serious question for people advocating fluff and theme based armies over competitive lists: What makes an army thematic or fluffy?

Can anybody lay out a standard of review for determining if an army is cheesy, thematic, fluffy, or balanced? If there was a way to determine what's acceptable and what's bad, it might be easier for everybody to agree on stuff.

I've tried a bunch of times, but it seems to come down to a combination of personal preferences and gut reactions.

As a side question, is there a difference between cookie cutter "net builds" like POD and a list that's been honed over time to become more effective? If not, is there any acceptable level of selecting better choices over worse?

I'll give you an example: in 4th edition, I would generally field my IG Platoon Commands with a missile launcher and two plasma guns. There is no fluff or background reason for this, but there was not internet buzz about that combo. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person to ever field it. I liked it because it worked, it filled gaps in my list, and I think I won more games than with other choices. Was what I did powergaming? Was it WAAC?



"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 23:09:38


Post by: bigtmac68


Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.




I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


Careful there Pelonius, a few more posts like that and I may not be able to resist the pull of a serious MAN CRUSH on you :-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So gamers who stick to the spirit of the game are better than powergamers.


That may be one of the most arrogant and unsportsmanlike comments I have ever seen.

My way of playing is good and right but your way of playing is simply inferior, see how sportsmanlike and concerned about my opponents fun I am being?

The fact that I prefer lists that are actually effective does not mean I dont want a challenge, quite to the contrary I love taking my best to the tournament and finding a tough challenging game against an opponent with a new take or different take, or just better strategy.

And I hate to break it to you but not playing to win is as unfluffy as you can get. In War you dont cripple your force, you bring the best you can possibly bring and seek to destroy your enemy utterly. I know this is just a game, and I have recived a perfect sportsmaship score in every tournament I have ever played, im not TFG, but I do prefer to play competetive games.

So in your mind, I should simply not be allowed to enjoy my hobby because it does not fit your dogmatic view of what is proper?

Dude you make TFG look like an angel.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 23:27:53


Post by: RustyKnight


I'm not sure if skullkandy is a troll or not. He seems awfully earnest.

As to the issue at hand, I'd love to see an objective method of determining fluffy-ness. I'm also waiting for a list that breaks the fluff in half.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 23:34:01


Post by: Regwon


Polonius wrote:

Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


This made my evening, I may have to sig this.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/26 23:36:06


Post by: Polonius


RustyKnight wrote:I'm not sure if skullkandy is a troll or not. He seems awfully earnest.

As to the issue at hand, I'd love to see an objective method of determining fluffy-ness. I'm also waiting for a list that breaks the fluff in half.


He's either a troll or an angry, angry man. His posts have been incendiary and highly insulting, making broad and damning generalizations far our of proportion to any supporting evidence.

I mean, if I wrote a post about how all fluff bunnies are sore losers who are a full of butt hurt about getting beaten over and over but refusing to ever change their tactics, I'd get reported in an instant, and rightfully so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regwon wrote:
Polonius wrote:

Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


This made my evening, I may have to sig this.


thanks. I like to shake up my well reasoned and informative posts with scathing sarcasm.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:11:54


Post by: RustyKnight


Polonius wrote:
thanks. I like to shake up my well reasoned and informative posts with scathing sarcasm.

You were joking?!? I was seriously considering avoiding Origins this year.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:12:52


Post by: Ketara


To conclude:-

-Some people make lists just to win.
-Some people make lists entirely around fluff
-But most people run vaguely fluffy lists for fun games, and design more competitive, less fluffy lists for tournaments!

Shocking I know.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:16:55


Post by: Polonius


RustyKnight wrote:
Polonius wrote:
thanks. I like to shake up my well reasoned and informative posts with scathing sarcasm.

You were joking?!? I was seriously considering avoiding Origins this year.


Oh god was I joking. I feel bad when I lash out and hit walls, let alone a person.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:18:45


Post by: HellsGuardian316


When I build my own armies I might add things that will work well in my battle, such as tailoring it for a particular enemy if I happen to know what I'm facing, but I always try to theme it, make the list complement itself and look natural.

IMHO, power builds are for Tournements as that to me is a competitive game whereas you friends or local store is a more friendly game, sure I play to win every time, but i want to enjoy the list I'm playing.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:19:11


Post by: Deadshane1


Just one thing we can nip in the bud real fast....

"I dont play to win, I play to simply enjoy the game."-Statement of a liar...or someone simply deluding his/herself. I'll let H.B.M.C. explain it as he's much more eloquent at it than I am, and its totally his territory anyways.

Something about, "so, when you play a game you dont 'try' to win? What, you play to lose? Do you try to shoot/assault the enemy or do you simply line your troops up, forgoing the shooting phase and wait for your opponent to knock them over?"

.............................

That being said. I find the most enjoyment out of the game by playing off the wall lists/units/armies. I'm also a tournament gamer, so winning games is of course very important when I build an army/list (which are in my mind the same thing).

Now, I consider myself a fairly good gamer. When I go to major tournements with an army that I'm familiar with I will generally lose one game out of the series (possibly also or instead tying one). That game will usually be against a very good player with an army geared to win every game played.

For example, the army I took this year to the Adepticon Championship were my Grey Knights. Now, I'm good enough to threaten people with this sub-standard army. I fully know what its capable of and have played it for some time now. I was lucky in my players that I went up against and was able to win all of my games. I enjoy the major challenge of taking 'original' ideas and lists to tournement and being the only one out of several hundred with the particular combination of troops that I bring.

However, I was TOTALLY prepared to go up against one of the "flavors of the week" and wind up paired up against a bikernob list (no chance of winning). I knew my chances of facing off against that list (zero) and was prepared to take the consequences of my army choice with a smile on my face.

Basically, if you "play for fluff" or "dont play to win" then it shouldnt bother you in the least when you get stomped. You arent playing to win right? Why should you care?

If losing a game bothers you at all, then you need to "build a list, not an army" Mauleed said it once on these boards years ago..."My opponents 'fun' is not my responsibility." ....and he was totally right. Don't use an army that requires truckloads of skill to beat armies that are tough-as-nails-point-and-click if you're not up to the challenge and/or cannot handle a loss without whining that the other player didnt abide by an imaginary set of rules that you conjure up.

...and thats exactly what it is...whining.

I vote 'no'.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:24:17


Post by: skullkandy


Polonius wrote:This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.



The term "troll" is just like "terrorist" or "communist" or "witch" before them.....all words twisted by people to be a broad slander against someone they don't agree with and supposedly invalidate any statements made by the accused.


I suppose next I'll be called a pinko-liberal-pagan-gentile.


And again the actual points of this debate are being twisted.

There is a very distinct difference between non-fluff armies and powergamer armies. It's not a cardinal sin to go against fluff, but it's pretty pathetic to take advantage of grey areas created by out of date rules, misprints, stupid mistakes by GW and cherrypicking optional rules to create a list.

Plus the root of the problem doesn't lay in the list itself, it's in the person behind the list. Someone above mentioned not being an donkey-cave because they didn't abide by the fluff. But by and large the type of personality that causes a person to obsess over only making a power-list and having no regard for sportsmanship and in fact even getting a perverse pleasure out of finding ways to not technically break the rules while still breaking the spirit of the rules to achieve an army much more powerful than it's point cost is the same kind of personality that is possessed by donkey-caves.

So obsessively seeking ways to undermine the balance of the game so you are at an advantage not intended by the rules just to win at the expense of a fair and fun match is the kind of thing jerks do.


prime example, with hunters allied with new IG psycher squad. Yeah, it's not against the rules, yeah you can do it, yeah it's uber powerful. But it's cheap and dirty and every gamer with a good attitude about their game and the people they play with won't do it because we all know it's wrong.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:34:00


Post by: RustyKnight


I really doubt being called a "troll" is even similar to being branded a witch/communist/terrorist and being killed for it.

If someone walked into an airport with red tubes strapped all over their chest with a button in their hand, what would be your first thought? Now, if someone posted a ridicuolously arrogant, ignorant, and combative comment in a relatively civil discussion, what would be your first thought?

Holy crap, I think he's trying to get the thread locked before any more logical arguments are posted.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:40:39


Post by: Polonius


skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.



The term "troll" is just like "terrorist" or "communist" or "witch" before them.....all words twisted by people to be a broad slander against someone they don't agree with and supposedly invalidate any statements made by the accused.


I suppose next I'll be called a pinko-liberal-pagan-gentile.


Actually, it has a pretty technical definition. It's a person that posts primarily to annoy, upset, or draw ire from other posters. And speaking of broad slander, let's take a look at these greatest hits:

skullkandy wrote:To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


Is there anything inflammatory there? I"m not sure. How about this:

skullkandy wrote:And I'm tired of hearing the excuse from powergamers (not specifically referring to you, just a follow up on the topic) that "It's how I play and you can't say you're way is better than my way." well yes I can, my way of playing is superior to munchkins. It's superior because it involves sportsmanship, respecting your opponent, making sure the game is fun for all involved (even the loser) instead of being a jerk who only plays when they know they will win and looks down on anyone who isn't willing to abuse grey areas for a cheap victory.


Well, I guess the fact that it merely implies that people that try to win disrespect opponents and are munchkins, it doesn't come right out and say those things. Of course, there's my favorite completely non-slanderous sentence:

skullkandy wrote:And the root character flaws that cause a gamer to power-list cause them to be of lower quality as gamers.


Listen guy, where I come from a guy that broadly insults a huge section of the posting population of a forum with incendiary stuff is a troll. Maybe you're not a troll, but you're posting like a jerk on a topic that's not exactly the freshest, you know?

In all honesty, part of me though you were actually doing a satire of ridiculous arguments hurled against tournament gamers, you're posts were that over the top. To think that they were actually earnest is actually kind of sad to me.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:52:00


Post by: skullkandy


Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.



The term "troll" is just like "terrorist" or "communist" or "witch" before them.....all words twisted by people to be a broad slander against someone they don't agree with and supposedly invalidate any statements made by the accused.


I suppose next I'll be called a pinko-liberal-pagan-gentile.


Actually, it has a pretty technical definition. It's a person that posts primarily to annoy, upset, or draw ire from other posters. And speaking of broad slander, let's take a look at these greatest hits:

skullkandy wrote:To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


Is there anything inflammatory there? I"m not sure. How about this:

skullkandy wrote:And I'm tired of hearing the excuse from powergamers (not specifically referring to you, just a follow up on the topic) that "It's how I play and you can't say you're way is better than my way." well yes I can, my way of playing is superior to munchkins. It's superior because it involves sportsmanship, respecting your opponent, making sure the game is fun for all involved (even the loser) instead of being a jerk who only plays when they know they will win and looks down on anyone who isn't willing to abuse grey areas for a cheap victory.


Well, I guess the fact that it merely implies that people that try to win disrespect opponents and are munchkins, it doesn't come right out and say those things. Of course, there's my favorite completely non-slanderous sentence:

skullkandy wrote:And the root character flaws that cause a gamer to power-list cause them to be of lower quality as gamers.


Listen guy, where I come from a guy that broadly insults a huge section of the posting population of a forum with incendiary stuff is a troll. Maybe you're not a troll, but you're posting like a jerk on a topic that's not exactly the freshest, you know?

In all honesty, part of me though you were actually doing a satire of ridiculous arguments hurled against tournament gamers, you're posts were that over the top. To think that they were actually earnest is actually kind of sad to me.



so you're sweeping generalizations are ok and not troll material. Every high and mighty forum warrior says troll the moment they disagree with someone else because it's the easy cop out. You think you can invalidate anything anyone says by referring to them as a troll, same as the hillbilly who screams "terrorist" every time they see a muslim.

At least I'm capable of admitting I know I'm better than you rather than parading around snobbishly insinuating my opinion is the only one that holds water.


power gamers are inferior, plain and simple. They detract from a hobby and no one likes them except for themselves. Do you know what real gamers do when they figure out a way to break the rules without actually breaking the rules? They do it once so the game group gets a good laugh and a surprise then they never do it again because it's lost it's novelty and becomes just a sick annoyance that no one wants to play with.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:58:15


Post by: sourclams


In my town, the power gamers have the best painted armies, bring the toughest game, and have the respect for their opponents to know the rules.

The "real gamers" like yourself have unpainted armies, don't know the rules and as a result cheat because of not knowing the rules (Brightlance range is 72"... right? "Broadsides are T5"...right?), and LOL while stomping the yard with the eleven year olds but cry CHEESE and 'MVNCHK1N!' when somebody in their age bracket stomps the yard with them.

So no, you're no better than any of us. You are a lot more proselytizing and elitist, though.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 00:58:56


Post by: Polonius


skullkandy wrote:
so you're sweeping generalizations are ok and not troll material. Every high and mighty forum warrior says troll the moment they disagree with someone else because it's the easy cop out. You think you can invalidate anything anyone says by referring to them as a troll, same as the hillbilly who screams "terrorist" every time they see a muslim.


First off, I wasn't making a sweeping generalization. You posted trollishly, and I called you a troll. You seem to have had bad run ins with some competitive gamers in the past, and brand them all the same. What I did was judge you by your own actions, using an objective standard. What you did was judge a huge group of people for the actions of a few by a totally subjective standard. (see below, where I ask for that standard to be shared.)

skullkandy wrote:
At least I'm capable of admitting I know I'm better than you rather than parading around snobbishly insinuating my opinion is the only one that holds water.


I think if you'll read my posts, you'll see that I'm not really advocating opinions, but merely pointing out facts about your posts.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=trolling&i=53181,00.asp#
I think if you read your posts, you'll see that they could easily be read as intending to stir emotional response far in excess of their content value.

I don't have troubles admitting that I'm better than most people, but it's unbecoming to make a big deal of it, you know? Noblesse Oblige and all that.

I'd also point out that you have failed to really address any of the substantive arguments made against your position.

skullkandy wrote: power gamers are inferior, plain and simple. They detract from a hobby and no one likes them except for themselves. Do you know what real gamers do when they figure out a way to break the rules without actually breaking the rules? They do it once so the game group gets a good laugh and a surprise then they never do it again because it's lost it's novelty and becomes just a sick annoyance that no one wants to play with.


How do they detract from the hobby? And what is "breaking the rules without breaking the rules" mean? I asked a few posts ago for somebody to articulate the actual standard by which powergaming should be judged. Care to share yours?

In short, you're post, thus far, reads "People that act in ways that I don't like are bad gamers."


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 01:08:19


Post by: Mattlov


Well, I play Grey Knights and Tyranids. I play relatively fluffy lists for both units. I use a lot of Hormaguants even though they suck and don't use Nidzilla, because is isn't any fun.

Grey Knights are ENTIRELY a fluff army, and not overly competitive, so no matter what list I throw out it is more fluff than competition.

Do I want to win when I play? Sure. Is it my over riding factor? Absolutely not.

Last time I checked, this is a GAME. The objective of a game is for ALL players to have fun. Most players I know don't like playing hard lists or playing against them because it isn't as fun. It also gets really repetitive and boring.

I have nothing against a power gamer, unless that is ALL they ever play. It tells me the guy is a one-trick pony, and is probably not going to be a fun opponent when any sort of bad luck goes against him. And I hate a whiner far more than a power gamer.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 01:12:14


Post by: Polonius


Mattlov wrote:
Last time I checked, this is a GAME. The objective of a game is for ALL players to have fun. Most players I know don't like playing hard lists or playing against them because it isn't as fun. It also gets really repetitive and boring.


Well, I think part of the confusion is that nobody seems fit to actually define "powergamer" for me. I mean, I dont' think it's repetitive to keep trying new builds to see if you can maximize their output, or try out new codices. YMMV.

Mattlov wrote:I have nothing against a power gamer, unless that is ALL they ever play. It tells me the guy is a one-trick pony, and is probably not going to be a fun opponent when any sort of bad luck goes against him. And I hate a whiner far more than a power gamer.


Why would they not be a fun opponent? Why would there be any correlation between building stronger lists and being more likely to be a bad opponent?


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 01:22:49


Post by: RustyKnight


Good, skip over my post Skull. It would invalidate your argument.
skullkandy wrote:
Every high and mighty forum warrior says troll the moment they disagree with someone else because it's the easy cop out. You think you can invalidate anything anyone says by referring to them as a troll, same as the hillbilly who screams "terrorist" every time they see a muslim.

I never really see people calling each other trolls here. It only happens when someone trolls, not when someone presents a calm, logical argument.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 02:17:22


Post by: Orkestra


I have to call Godwin's Law on this thread.

@Polonius: I'll take you up on that challenge of quantifying the differences. It'll be tough, so give me a few minutes.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 02:28:44


Post by: Feldmarshal Goehring


In our local group, we all have our armies that we love the models and the fluff. Everyone has more models than can fit in anything except apocalypse, so you see the same person running different units from their dex together on different days.

However, Most of us have a power build version that we take to tournaments for the ultra competitive play.

I always thought most everyone did it that way. Play for fun and fluff, but keep a strong tourney list for trying to make a good showing.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 02:38:21


Post by: Polonius


Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:In our local group, we all have our armies that we love the models and the fluff. Everyone has more models than can fit in anything except apocalypse, so you see the same person running different units from their dex together on different days.

However, Most of us have a power build version that we take to tournaments for the ultra competitive play.

I always thought most everyone did it that way. Play for fun and fluff, but keep a strong tourney list for trying to make a good showing.


Hey, that's dangerously rational!


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 03:13:06


Post by: whitedragon


EasyE wrote:Should people respect the background of the race that they play instead of making only a powerbuild?


What background? I can't find anything in any of the newer codicies about rivalries between chaos powers, single legion chaos armies, eldar craftworlds, ork klanz, or anything of the sort! The army list doesn't put any restrictions on any units based on sub-faction, craftworld, chaos god, or anything else, so how am I supposed to know what is what?

And with GW's endorsement of "counts as", why couldn't I use Eldrad Ulthwe as Aldred Elthwu of Saim Hann?

You are imagining a distinction that no longer exists in 40k. How is a new player supposed to know that Saim Hann are the wild riders and use predominantly jetbikes? Aside from the mini-blurb that says "prefers jetbikes and quick assaults", there is nothing in the army list that tells the player what a Saim Hann army is supposed to look like. Actually, the codex just says that anything in the codex represents an Eldar army, so since Saim Hann are eldar they must be able to use anything.

Pg 2 "Eldar Army List: The Army List takes all the troops presented in the previous section and arranges them so you can choose a force for your games."

Hell, this means you could use Eldrad in a Saim Hann army and not even change his name or paint him different! All troops in the previous section, (which includes Eldrad) and arranges them so you can choose them. NEAT!

Pg 59 "The following pages contain an army list that allows you to field an Eldar army and fight battles..."

Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 03:15:11


Post by: Waaaaaaagh!


whitedragon wrote:Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?
By Learning about their army. If you want to play a Power Cheese army in XYZ colours, go ahead, I will still have more respect for the new player who took the time to find out and learn the fluff behind his army and build his Army Accordingly.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 03:20:59


Post by: Polonius


Waaaaaaagh! wrote:
whitedragon wrote:Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?
By Learning about their army.


From where? What should he learn? What should he ignore? Is all fluff still equally valid, or only stuff from certain time periods? What about players that create their own craftworlds? What sources should he use to learn this stuff?

If you want to play a Power Cheese army in XYZ colours, go ahead, I will still have more respect for the new player who took the time to find out and learn the fluff behind his army and build his Army Accordingly.


Again, what fluff? According to what?

Use Eldar as an example. Tell us what a player should know, what makes a fluffy list, what makes a cheesy list.

All you've done so far is repeatedly say "I respect players that field armies that look the way I think armies should look," which is fine, except we're not all mindreaders.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 03:22:23


Post by: whitedragon


Waaaaaaagh! wrote:
whitedragon wrote:Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?
By Learning about their army. If you want to play a Power Cheese army in XYZ colours, go ahead, I will still have more respect for the new player who took the time to find out and learn the fluff behind his army and build his Army Accordingly.


Where are they supposed to get that fluff Waagh? Most of it doesn't exist anymore, or only exists through the rose tinted glasses of veterans. Where would a new player find out about Wild Riders of Saim Hann, Nuadu Fireheart, and their goofy clan structure?

EDIT:

Damn you Polonius, you posted a schoche before me...


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 06:36:44


Post by: Perturabo's Chosen


People that have an army only have to change their tactics when editions change. People that only have a list moan and complain every edition change, because they are forced to buy new models.

I once was a list player; back in the 90's. I have been collecting since 95. In 2ed edition, I had an almost unbeatable Chaos Space Marines: Iron Warriors and Nugle list, and when the change to third edition happened, I was screwed as I only had the models in the list. This forced me to expand my collection. I would say that I have quite an army right now, over 100 Iron warriors and 40 Deathgaurd, easily over 6000 pionts worth of models. When it comes time to make a list for a battle, i can pick and chose for all the options, making whatever suits my mood and is best for the task at hand, beating my opponent. When the change from 3rd to forth happened, I barely even noticed; I was prepared. When fourth to fifth happened, I rejoiced as I was more than ready to adapt.

That being said, I am still collecting and painting CSM, there is no-such thing as a complete army. Unless you have a full chapter/legion, then you're done, time for a new race.

A LIST IS JUST A LIST, BUT AN ARMY CAN MAKE MANY LISTS!


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 06:48:58


Post by: Dracos


skullkandy wrote:I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


I'm not sure if you realize this, but you sound like the sore loser. "Cheese" and "Loopholes" eh? Please elaborate with examples of what you would place in those categories.

I have found the term "cheese" is most often used by people who can't adapt and overcome a particular strategy - and not necessarily because it is insurmountable.



"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 10:54:27


Post by: Corum


Personally, I like that some folks just cruise the net for Lists and slap them together.

When I take a "normal" army list and beat them, it makes it all the sweeter. Nothing is better than smiling across the table at the Double Lash/Plasma Cannon/Plague Marine army of doom and smiling: "Good Game man, you almost had me there on Turn 1."

To those who call others 'Carebear', 'Fluff Nazi', and 'Casual Gamer Nerd'.....

Your Tears are like mana to me. They taste like a warm summers' day. Their nectar will succor me through the long dark of the night.

Because when these kind of guys lose...they got nothing else.

If you are looking for a customizable system to build "uber" forces and crush your enemies with, Magic The Gathering is still going strong.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 11:01:53


Post by: RustyKnight


Corum wrote:
Because when these kind of guys lose...they got nothing else.

...what? People that play competatvie lists have no lives?

What if someone has an entire Nurgle/Slaanesh combined forces army? Does that suddenly make it okay for that person to field Fzorgle power builds?

I still want to see a list that breaks the fluff in half (psst, it doesn't exist).


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 14:20:53


Post by: plan9au



Good points all.....But hell im a Hardcore Veteran Fluffer....im the nerd who buys each codex weither it's my army or not, just to read the new army rules....Im the person who spends hours doing and re-doing their army list to find the exact flavour that suits my theme. I spend days and weeks painting and getting ready for the one night a week i can take my force down to my local and play. And hell i enjoy the gaming, win or lose (unless the opponent is a jerk), shake hands and leave happy that a good fun game is had by all. Maybe im lucky that i have a good group of players, or maybe i dont see the game as the ultimate part of the hobby.

And the one thing ive learned, entering tournements in my local area with a fluff army has two added bonuses, 1. i get points for the fluff and army build around it and 2. loosing to all the power builds mean i normally get symapthy points from the judges and my opponents and will take best general/sport and/or the last place prize, which if i remember correctly was a Landraider and two Rhino kits (compared with a Space marine Battleforce and codex - won ironically by an orc player). So fluff wins for me.

I dont care if i win or lose if i played a good sport and had fun, and im happy to take home the last place prize.....


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 14:47:49


Post by: malfred


What if instead of "tournament" they used the word "Pageant."

Warhammer 40,000 Army Exhibition

Would people still go?


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 15:36:24


Post by: fatal_GRACE


I think the issue isn't really tournament play. Anybody who makes 'fun, fluffy' army for tournament play with more of an eye towards their fluff than the competitive aspects of their army for a tournament probably deserves to lose, and if they bitch about it alot, they REALLY deserve to lose. Regardless of the army I play, I expect to see power builds at tournaments - there is a lot more at stake there than just the immaterial outcome of a game or two. I expect my opponent to be at their best, and I will try to be at mine.

However, where the lines start to get fuzzy is in friendly play. Everybody knows you can win a tournament with that power build if you know what you are doing, but friendly games aren't about (at least for me) winning. It's about narrative. At a tournament, you get the thrill of climbing the ranks to be number one, but that is just not something that everybody wants or needs. If I show up at the FLGS and I just want to have a fun, fluffy game, I don't want to have to set up against that same vet air cav list or dual lash/oblit spam list I fought 10 times at the last tournament.

I think friendly games are a way to create a narrative with the game. It's not a place for WAAC gaming, where this unit has X% chance of killing that unit and therefore you have a X% chance of winning. It's a game where the noble, courageous 122nd Cadian protects their home from the bloodthirsty ravages of an invading World Eaters company.

There is a time and a place for both fluffy play and powergaming, and it's when the two clash that it becomes a problem.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/27 16:54:07


Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable


Abiding by fluff that no longer exists adds a major strain to making an army/list/collection-of-models-used-for-gaming. I can say that with years of DM experience, you'll always have the guy who wants to have an elf that's less refined than the drunken dwarf player, or the wild, unrefined wizard. The gaming stereotypes are broken alot, and it's fun when everything is kept in check granted, but ti can be a lot less fun when everyone has to be looking over their shoulder for the fluff reaper. Just make a list to play a game with. That's it. Trying different stuff makes it more fun too. For the life of me, I don't know anyone who only has enough models for one list.


"Make an army, not a list" @ 2009/05/29 04:30:53


Post by: Hollismason


I dont get why you can't do both; play a hard army at tourneys and fluffy in friendly.


I like playing unconventionally like multiple Techmarines w/ Thunderfires etc.. Squads of Servitors etc.. in fluffy games. I pretend that I have 2 MOF per Dread and then I have 1 techmarine that follows the dreads and the servitors around then I have tactical squads in rhinos.

I have never won a game with it but man is it fething fun to play.