This is actually in response to all of the cries of “But that just killed the only competitive list my army has!” after the latest FAQs.

Now as I see it there are Three types of list.
1] Tournament List
2] WAAC List
3] For Enjoyment List

Tournament List:
I understand that when you go to a Tournament you need to bring your “A Game”. You need the best you got because you are taking the “No Holds Barred Best of the Best”. These list I have no issue with them. I would run them if I went to such and [here is the important part] wanted to win. This might be the problem I have with some of the Tournament List, most of these slide over to the WAAC list.

WAAC List:
I know winning is fun, but it should not be everything. I have played against a few in my day and if I never play one again I will be a happy little camper. Here is my problem with WAAC Gamers, I don’t have fun. Usually when I loose to one I have to spend the next Millennia or so hearing about how he beat my “Killer List” [I don’t Play those as far as I know] and By the Emperor should I win, I can't enjoy it because he is now pissed off beyond belief because some how I cheated. This is not why I play.

For Enjoyment List:
Now these are the list I love to play. Win or loose as long as I had a good time my list served its purpose, 2-5 hours of hiding from the Real World. I went out and played the Units/Models I came up for the game. My hope is that my opponent has done the same thing. I personally feel that my Job as a player is to make sure all involved had a good time. This should also be my opponent’s job. If one of us did not then I have failed to do my job.

This gets to my List Building Philosophy:
When I build a list I usually have a theme, usually it stems from the idea of one to three units I want to play and have fun with. Then it goes to the next part, do I just want to throw out units I want to play, theme my list behind it, Fill out the FOC or go Competitive. I will use my Space Wolf Army in my Examples.

Throwing List Together:
I pick what I want to play, let’s say my two Lone Wolves, some Skyclaws and my three Land Speeders. I then just do it and see how many points I have left to fill out my list legally, this usually means two Packs of Grey Hunters. Then I fill out the rest of the list with whatever fits in what points are left.
The Pros: I get to field what I want.
The Cons: I might get my Tail Handed to me in a crushing defeat.
The Outcome: I usually have a good time, win or loose.

Theme List:
I really only have one Themed List for my Space Wolves; “The Winter Wolves”. Basically it is a Great Company that as a whole has become tainted with the Warp. The result of this is that The Mark of the Wolfen has become more common. So basically any chance I get I take MotW. This includes with my Thunder Wolf Cavalry and Wolf Guard Battle Leaders. I also use Canis and Fenrisian Wolves [I use a lot of Confrontation Wolfen for the models].
The Pros: I get to field a story based themed army that when I am finally done should look really cool.
The Cons: I might get my Tail Handed to me in a crushing defeat.
The Outcome: I usually have a good time, win or loose.

Fill out the FOC:
This one is simple; I just make sure I have filled out the whole FOC before I start adding extra units. If both players use this method you actually come up with a pair balanced armies.
The Pros: I end up with a relatively balance Army.
The Cons: I might get my Tail Handed to me in a crushing defeat.
The Outcome: I usually have a good time, win or loose.

Competitive List:
>Rune Priest [Master of Runes, Divination] with a Long Fang Pack [1x Heavy Bolter, 2x Las-Cannon, 2x Missile Launchers]
>2x Grey Hunter Packs [2x Plasma Guns]
>3x Land Speeders [Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher]
This is what is my Core I made of; from there is build my list around this. I usually end up adding a 5x ML Long Fangs Pack and more Grey Hunters. This quickly become boring so I stopped using them. Closest I come to using them right now it adding to one of the above to fill in points or quickly just fill out the FOC.

Now Back to my Point:
In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

Why do you complain about not using their Favorite Units, because they are are not as good as you think they should be?

Why do you shelve entire armies because you “New Codex” was not what you wanted it to be?

The only time I Shelved an Army is when the 2nd Edition Imperial Guard Army Codex came out and I needed to buy another $100 worth of models to make it Legal to play. The same with 3rd and 4th, then the 5th edition Guard Codex came out and I did not have to spend a single dime to make it legal once more.

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

Could you not have a good game will All “Bad Units” as you could with an All “Good Unit” game?

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

 Anpu42 wrote:

In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

They don't. You're a "fluff" gamer. Nothing wrong with that. It sound like you're playing against "competitive" players.

Ask them to play "fluffy" army lists for a few games.

 kronk wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

They don't. You're a "fluff" gamer. Nothing wrong with that. It sound like you're playing against "competitive" players.

Ask them to play "fluffy" army lists for a few games.

Yeah that never works, you could easily see it from a few posts on the forum.

"Alright, I'll play my fluffy list that looks exactly like this top tier, IG netlist that everyone plays, I've got fluff for it!"

You gotta designate it a bit down.

I'm sorry that the gamers in your area are like that, Zebio. I forget how fortunate I am to have my group some times.

 kronk wrote:
I'm sorry that the gamers in your area are like that, Zebio. I forget how fortunate I am to have my group some times.

Yeah got a mix, but generally I've found that rather then just doing fluffy lists. Try doing more along the line of a narrative campaign battle.

Tyranids assaulting the last bastion of an Imperial Stronghold while citizens and Artifacts are being sent out. Make up your own rules for the battle. Having to prevent FMC from downing the Thunderhawk transports, the endless swarm coming, bombardments coming from IG ships in orbit.

Usually the most interesting are something a bit different then normal.

People like to win. Fact.

Some aspect of human psychology makes us like coming out on top, whether it be in a fight, an exam, a game of Fifa or, like here, a wargame. Everyone likes winning, some more than others, true, but you can't deny that we all like to win.

Now, here's the crucial point. You and your opponent can both have fun whilst trying to win. Personally, I think that the two are, in fact, related. Let's take an non-wargaming example: I run the 3000m for my school and athletics club and, obviously, I like to win. However, unless I get an awesome PB (which doesn't really matter in this context), I'm not going to feel satisfied by a victory if everyone in else in the race decided to walk it. I am, however, going to feel very chuffed with myself if I run a blistering last lap and overtake three people who'd perhaps not ran such a tactical race and had got tired early on. I find that this is very similar in wargaming and, indeed, most things. Aside from massive Apocalypse/Storm of Magic/Event games which are generally fun by default, I only get the full enjoyment out of the game if both myself and my opponent are trying to win and it's a close fought, tense battle. Of course, I won't deny that I then get yet more enjoyment if I finally come out on top. I'll still enjoy playing a "fluff gamer" or the like, but probably not as much. To this extent, I take competitive lists, but perhaps not ones that would be referred to as WAAC. If it turns out that my army is far superior to my opponent's or if I'm winning by a lot, I'll start to get more lenient, perhaps not playing quite as "well" or "competitively" as I would otherwise. For example, I played a game against a Black Templar army the other week and I was winning fairly comfortably. My opponent had some sort of jetpack marine unit near one of my battlewagons. He had a melta gun and rolled to try and damage the battlewagon, needing a 2 to pen. He got a 1, I let him re-roll it. I enjoy winning, but I have no enjoyment of utterly thrashing a disadvantaged opponent, in the same way I'd get no satisfaction from winning a 3000m race in the Under 13's category (I fall into Under 20s now).

Of course, there is a point, which I think is what the OP is referring to, where the WAAC-ness becomes too much. Now, back to my lists, taking my Tyranids for example. I would like to include loads of standard Genestealers (because they're cool), but I recognise that they're not a very competitive choice nowadays, so I don't take them. However, I don't particularly like to take the most competitive lists around, so, unlike most competitive Nid players, I don't take loads of Tervigons and sometimes not even a Winged Tyrant. Nids are perhaps a bad example since they're not that competitive, but you get the idea. I like a competitive, hard fought game, but if my opponent takes something ridiculous like 6 Vendettas or whatever, or starts to move his models an extra inch forward to get into rapid fire range, or starts to pick up them dice very quickly, I will start losing enjoyment in the game. For my opponent's sake, I do not do the same.

TLDR: I can't really cut it short but to try to do so, I say there's a difference between competitiveness and WAAC.

@ Shadow: You are some one I would enjoy playing with.

Actually I have a small group of players I deal with; one is also a “Fluff Player”. The others are new and I am trying to teach them how to have fun without being TFG.
One of them, I will call him Mac, chose his army the way I think everyone should. He was looking though “Kruthik Slayer of Small Animals and Children” [our name for the BRB], saw the picture of Vulcan and said, that how I want my army to look like.
His girl friend did the same thing and chose Orks.
Now our TFG tried Tau, but was disappointed with them until he final read the Guard Codex [like I was trying to have him do for a year] and finally figured out he could take Tank Squadrons and Artillery Batteries. Now if I could get him to start reading the rules we would be great.
We also have an occasional Guard Player who brings a ok army, but use that Psyker/Psychic Squad combo that does the reduced LD Attack Combo.

I had another couple of players, one a Chaos Marine Player and an Ork/Nid player, but real life made them go away.
The Chaos player was almost TFG, mostly because he wanted to use the old and out of date Codex.
The Ork/Nid player was great, even though I could not beat him. I think he was at the edge of WAAC, but only on List Building.

So I don’t think it is as much my group as the community in general I am talking about. Both reading the “Whining” about how “My favorite unit now Sucks!” and “My Codex Sucks!” threads [I really need to stop reading these]. Along with every time I post a “Fur Fun List” I either get You list Sucks, you need to Change… or if I post it is a “For Fun” list and get no replies, I just sort of needed to vent.

This is actually the 9th or 10th one of these I have written, but the first in a long time that I posted.

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

I feel like the issue that causes people to complain when something in their army is nerfed is that they don't want to have to change it, or that they enjoy playing against tuned lists and now can't compete as well.

I personally am the latter type of player, but in my case I can barely compete anyway because my chosen army (Deathwing) is weak as hell anyway, and the most recent change weakened it further :(

Oh well, the army is still fun to play, I'll just have to change it up or hope I face something it can deal with in tournaments

I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

I am not saying to handicap yourself, as the title says: Does Every List Need to Be Competitive?



Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

Competitive lists are ones which can maximize the chances of victory against all opponents (TAC). If someone comes on here and asks for info on how to improve their list, the competitive standard provides this guideline. However, if competitive isn't what you're worried about, the there's no need to ask for list help and etc on Dakka.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

I am not saying to handicap yourself, as the title says: Does Every List Need to Be Competitive?

For me, yes. Every list needs to be as competitive as I can make it within the parameters I've set for it. Even if I go to make a more "just for fun" or fluffy list (like my 100% melee list) I still want to optimise it to give me the best possible chance of winning. Maybe its because I used to play TCGs, where even if I was playing with a lower tier deck, I'd still optimise it to win and constantly tweak and improve it, which developed my deck building skills. By doing the same thing with my lists in 40k I can develop my list building skills. Even if I'm using a list with "all bad units" I'm still going to try to work out the best list I can so that they synergise on the table and give me the best chance of winning.

Most tournaments I go to are not things like 'Ard Boys or anything giving most prizes to the armies that do well.

Sure there are some prizes for the top armies, but most of the prizes are raffle based. Things like top 3 sportsmanship, top 3 in painting, and top 3 in placement at the end give a good bit of extra tickets, but losing games individually gives tickets too.

Sure some WAAC guys show up, some people desperately need to win to feel accomplished, but it usually is MUCH less prevalent. These events also hit the current meta with mission styles that favor less spam and more balanced approaches.

In these tournaments I usually have fun bringing a list that is specifically designed to bring down one of the top two lists being played in the tournament structure. It would probably lose to ANYTHING but that list...but that one list will suffer greatly at my hands. THAT is fun for me. :-P

No, not every list! But there are enough people who enjoy the winning-part of the game.
My brother is one of those people.
In MtG he likes to win and that attitude changes the way he plays and how he builds lists. He'd probably act like that in WH if I could get him to play.

For me playing Warhammer is an excuse to have friends over for beer (even though I don't drink it) and in MtG I prefer to be in control.
Because when I am in control I can dictate what happens, I can shoot down things that have a too large impact and 'protect' smaller things to ensure everyone is having a great time.
It's hard to do that in Warhammer since it's not really a multiplayer game, it's 1 team VS 1 team.

One important thing:
Even though I hate the WAAC-attitude, I understand that some people enjoy it.
Asking person A to stop playing so competitive because player B dislikes it will result into player B enjoying the game and player A disliking it.
People should try to find playmates who have the same mindset so that everyone expects the same out of a game.

And one last thing:
Most lists posted online are from people asking for advice.
We cannot give people advice on how to enjoy his list more since that is purely subjective.
But peers can tell him how he has a bigger chance of winning.
Subjective discussions are "lame" since others cannot know what people enjoy and because you can't argue over someone's taste.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Competitive lists are ones which can maximize the chances of victory against all opponents (TAC). If someone comes on here and asks for info on how to improve their list, the competitive standard provides this guideline. However, if competitive isn't what you're worried about, the there's no need to ask for list help and etc on Dakka.

Asking for an opinion is not the same asking for help.

What has been getting to “Once More”, is when I post a list with “let’s say” Unit of Skyclaws in it. I get three pages of “Skyclaws Suck!”, nothing constructive.

Now if I say is a “Fun List” all I get is crickets.

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

I think that, possibly as a result of the people you play, you're lumping "competitive" with "WAAC" a bit much. To me, WAAC is much more an attitude of winning without taking into account the opponents, or their own, fun. Competitive, the way I see it, is more building a strong list and trying to win with it, but still having fun along the way. Competitive players will cheer when your opponent's single grot charges into your assault terminators, kills one, and then wins combat and sweeps them, because that is so unlikely and awesome you just have to congratulate them for it. WAAC players will b*tch and moan about that for the rest of their life. In the same vein, if a competitive player is on the grot end of things, they'll probably be glad about it, but be sympathetic to the opponent.

As for the list aspect, I like to think I have a good perspective on that. I'd say I am a competitive player in the way that I play, I enjoy playing to win and love a hard-fought game. But I'm a college student with no job, and I started playing in high school. Funds are limited, so once I got past the initial phase of first getting into the game where I just bought whatever looked cool when I had some spare cash, I had to be more discerning with what I bought. I'm an Eldar player with no allies, so nothing is really THAT strong, but I am slightly worried about how much they'll change things with the next book because it really is an issue having to buy almost a whole new army to still play the way I enjoy playing.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Competitive lists are ones which can maximize the chances of victory against all opponents (TAC). If someone comes on here and asks for info on how to improve their list, the competitive standard provides this guideline. However, if competitive isn't what you're worried about, the there's no need to ask for list help and etc on Dakka.

Asking for an opinion is not the same asking for help.

What has been getting to “Once More”, is when I post a list with “let’s say” Unit of Skyclaws in it. I get three pages of “Skyclaws Suck!”, nothing constructive.

Now if I say is a “Fun List” all I get is crickets.

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

I prefer to help people with fun lists. It's a lot more challenging to work within a theme, or try to make something that seems marginal work well. You might not get a tournament winning list out of it, but something that puts up a good fight with a chance of victory. And most of the time you can see people's joy and passion for the hobby more in fun list. Not that it isn't there when people work on tournament lists, it just doesn't show as easily.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I think that, possibly as a result of the people you play, you're lumping "competitive" with "WAAC" a bit much. To me, WAAC is much more an attitude of winning without taking into account the opponents, or their own, fun. Competitive, the way I see it, is more building a strong list and trying to win with it, but still having fun along the way. Competitive players will cheer when your opponent's single grot charges into your assault terminators, kills one, and then wins combat and sweeps them, because that is so unlikely and awesome you just have to congratulate them for it. WAAC players will b*tch and moan about that for the rest of their life. In the same vein, if a competitive player is on the grot end of things, they'll probably be glad about it, but be sympathetic to the opponent.

As for the list aspect, I like to think I have a good perspective on that. I'd say I am a competitive player in the way that I play, I enjoy playing to win and love a hard-fought game. But I'm a college student with no job, and I started playing in high school. Funds are limited, so once I got past the initial phase of first getting into the game where I just bought whatever looked cool when I had some spare cash, I had to be more discerning with what I bought. I'm an Eldar player with no allies, so nothing is really THAT strong, but I am slightly worried about how much they'll change things with the next book because it really is an issue having to buy almost a whole new army to still play the way I enjoy playing.

This is how I would like things to be.

I also think some people are getting something wrong about what I am trying to say.

I want good competitive games. I also want to field and see Ogrens, Vanguard Vets and Leman Russ Battle Tanks on the field on both sides.


Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

I am not saying to handicap yourself, as the title says: Does Every List Need to Be Competitive?

For me, yes. Every list needs to be as competitive as I can make it within the parameters I've set for it. Even if I go to make a more "just for fun" or fluffy list (like my 100% melee list) I still want to optimise it to give me the best possible chance of winning. Maybe its because I used to play TCGs, where even if I was playing with a lower tier deck, I'd still optimise it to win and constantly tweak and improve it, which developed my deck building skills. By doing the same thing with my lists in 40k I can develop my list building skills. Even if I'm using a list with "all bad units" I'm still going to try to work out the best list I can so that they synergise on the table and give me the best chance of winning.

OP: The quoted post is an example of the disconnect that ensures that there are some people who will just not have fun playing each other(note to person I quoted: I'm not having a go at you, how you play is up to you).

In particular, the idea of tuning your army to develop "list building skills"; the goal of the game is to win, and the game starts the moment you open your codex and begin planning your army, according to that mindset. Other people see the game as a primarily cooperative experience, and the game begins for them when you put models down on the table, "list building" is simply a mechanic that allows them to field the models they like or realise a story on the tabletop, and for such people the former attitude is considered something that only really belongs in a tournament setting.

Also, The Shadow; no, sorry, not a "fact" at all. People like to achieve things - that only means winning if the people involved in an activity define it as being competitive.

Pretty much all my lists are themed now that I think about it. Then again I've never played in a tournament because I don't enjoy the competitive setting really. Sure I take a beating most of the time but winning isn't the thing for me. It's the things that my units pull off on the field. You may lose a game horribly but one of your units does amazing things and is the only thing you have on the table at the end of the game. I've played a few games ending like that and it was awesome. My DE army getting massacred in 2 turns except the archon who survives to turn 5 and gets killed when the shadow field save failed. A 2 on 2 game (my IG and another player with BA vs two Necron players) where the only thing I had left in the end was my LR Punisher, which I field for the fun of it, and it had killed alone most of the warrior squads in the enemy forces. Fun games to me.

Then again there are those guys who always take the game very seriously. Too seriously. It might be good practice for a tournament though but I kinda don't see the fun in playing competitive all the damn time. I've played those guys and some of them look at me funny when I laugh at my own failures.

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

No one here plays bad lists or bad units . There is no difference between tournament and non tournament lists . So my options are play an army with bad units and lose , because everyone else is playing good lists or play a good list and play like everyone else. It is not just the win thing , but am not saying it is not important , but stuff like feeling bad about the money on you spent on something . If I spend the same or even more cash then my friends on an army , that doesnt work it would be feel bad . There is also the whole community thing , if you play a bad list you will be at best laughted at and at worse no one will play you , because playing against a bad list isnt fun for them .

When I started playing w40k I was a late comer , my 3 friends from school already had armies SW, GK and BAs were taken . So my only option was to play IG ,.I didnt even want to play w40k in the first place I liked both the mechanics and the play style of warmachine more . But they played w40k and while warmachine had a big community , PP kind of a stoped sending shipments to Poland for a year , so I couldnt even get a starer set not to mention actual good units . This is how gaming looks here . Sometimes there people who start a bad army , but after buying 1k points and playing 10 games against the stuff normaly used by vets they just stop playing and sell their stuff .

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
"Alright, I'll play my fluffy list that looks exactly like this top tier, IG netlist that everyone plays, I've got fluff for it!"

Sorry, but many netlists ARE fluffy. "Fluffy" means "representing an element of the background fiction", it is NOT defined as "the opposite of an optimized list". A powerful tournament list can be perfectly fluffy, and a weak list can be a completely un-fluffy pile of random units.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Usually when I loose to one I have to spend the next Millennia or so hearing about how he beat my “Killer List” [I don’t Play those as far as I know] and By the Emperor should I win, I can't enjoy it because he is now pissed off beyond belief because some how I cheated. This is not why I play.

I thought we were talking about lists here? Why are you bringing up player attitudes and bad behavior (which can happen no matter what lists are involved) instead of list-building choices?

In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

Because winning is fun, and because some people enjoy a competitive game even when they aren't playing in a tournament.

Also, forum discussion assumes a competitive list because how well a list wins is the only objective thing you can discuss. What is "fluffy" or "fun" is entirely subjective, so once you come up with a list of "fluffy" or "fun" things you want to use there's nothing left to talk about.

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

Because losing isn't fun, and playing with a random pile of units is a good way to lose if your opponent hasn't similarly crippled their own list.

Could you not have a good game will All “Bad Units” as you could with an All “Good Unit” game?

Sure, if you can find an opponent willing to play a "bad units" game and give up any "good units" they enjoy playing with, and then spend a bunch of time negotiating the exact power level your lists should be built at and carefully writing your list so that neither player brings anything too good. But this depends on finding a very specific kind of opponent, you can't do this with a random pickup game.

I definitely agree that playing to win is 'natural' and whatnot, but what my friends and I do is make a fun list, then try to win with it.

If you win, its hilarious and you weirdos can get that 'rush' or whatever.
If you lose, didn't you expect to?

I take a step back every game and say "These are toy soldiers I spent way to much time and money on" then continue laughing at myself while I assault a Hellbrute with guardsmen.

Doing silly stuff in games against serious players has made them angry, in my experience, and ultimately lightens the mood and lets them know you are not playing for the same reason as them and that they will waste their time if they keep playing you in a WAAC manner.

Love your approach UnadoptedPuppy!!!

Fluffy vs. WAAC vs. Competitive... Really, an individual's predefined expected result is tailored by two things: personal self-esteem and how they were raised (not any general human-nature, this doesn't exist in everyone). Competitiveness is not an ingrained human trait. Some people have deeply ingrained, and maybe not apparent to them, social and self-esteem issues that can be partially assuaged by winning games/sports/etc... You know, the whole feel-good I was better routine...
Further, some people are raised in environments that reward competitiveness and downplay the idea that the path to the finish line is where the actual fun is to be had (I.E. actually playing the game/sport). Winning or losing doesn't matter unless your pride depends on the accolades to get a boost.

Sorry, but many netlists ARE fluffy. "Fluffy" means "representing an element of the background fiction", it is NOT defined as "the opposite of an optimized list". A powerful tournament list can be perfectly fluffy, and a weak list can be a completely un-fluffy pile of random units.

Called it

Even when the reference was for taking a less then optimal list.

kanebbcksc wrote:
Further, some people are raised in environments that reward competitiveness and downplay the idea that the path to the finish line is where the actual fun is to be had (I.E. actually playing the game/sport).

Actually playing the sport is competition.

Winning or losing doesn't matter unless your pride depends on the accolades to get a boost.

Which is completely false. Yes, some people get an ego boost from the praise a winner sometimes gets, but the inherent value of out-competing your fellow players still has a lot of value.

To me this is a modelling hobby first and gaming hobby second. For that reason my army composition is greatly influenced by what models I like to convert and paint. This also means that I rarely have identical units, as it is more fun to build and paint something new than second or third duplicate of an unit you already have. Now, this does not meant that I do not play to win, I certainly do; I try to do my best with the army I have.

As for winning, I don't care about it that much, but I care about exiting games, and that usually means even and hard fought ones. I rather marginally lose an exiting battle that could've gone either way, than win a boring game where I utterly crush the enemy and the result is clear from the start.

In any case, I find that games tend games to be more interesting when people have armies with a lot of varied units with different abilities, instead of just spamming one or two most powerful units.

I think playing competitively and building lists competitively are two different things. Most people like the first, not all like the second.

 Peregrine wrote:
Actually playing the sport is competition.

But there is nothing wrong with heading out to you back yard and tossing the ball around.
This is what I am talking about. Not every List needs to be with your first stringers every time. Some times you should let the second stingers and benchwarmers play.

Exactly where is the value? How does it further your accomplishments in life or add to your body of work? I postulate that as it is meant to be a hobby the only real reason for it is personal enjoyment and the social aspect of being with people that share a like-minded view. I will admit that playing the game has an aspect of competition to it, but that should really be a very small part of why one plays unless you have found a way to make it into a lucrative career. Which, in that case, please share how we may all pad our checking accounts by playing our game competitively! I win more than lose but that has more to do with having a keen understanding of tactics than any high level of competitiveness within me.

 Anpu42 wrote:
But there is nothing wrong with heading out to you back yard and tossing the ball around.

Sure, if that's what you and your opponent both want to do, and you make an explicit agreement to only "toss the ball around" (complete with clear definitions of what is "too competitive"). But it is not a superior kind of game, or even something everyone has any interest in doing.

This is what I am talking about. Not every List needs to be with your first stringers every time. Some times you should let the second stingers and benchwarmers play.

So I should go buy extra "bad" units just for the sake of playing with bad units?

kanebbcksc wrote:
Exactly where is the value? How does it further your accomplishments in life or add to your body of work?

Competition is valuable because it pushes you to do better, and gives you the challenge of matching your best against another person and seeing if you can overcome that challenge. Winning is a necessary part of that, if you don't have a winner then you don't have competition.

I postulate that as it is meant to be a hobby the only real reason for it is personal enjoyment and the social aspect of being with people that share a like-minded view.

And guess what: some people get a lot of personal enjoyment out of competitive games.

I will admit that playing the game has an aspect of competition to it, but that should really be a very small part of why one plays unless you have found a way to make it into a lucrative career.

That's nice. Not everyone shares your priorities, for some people competition is the whole reason for playing.

Peregrine, don't you ever get bored playing those same optimal units all the time? Why not set yourself a challenge to beat your opponent using Sentinels and Rough Riders?

 Crimson wrote:
Peregrine, don't you ever get bored playing those same optimal units all the time?

No.

Why not set yourself a challenge to beat your opponent using Sentinels and Rough Riders?

Because then I'd have to spend a bunch of money on the required models, then spend weeks/months painting them, and then have to convince my opponents to weaken their own lists so that I have a chance. Why bother when I can just play a good list instead?

I think everyone needs to take a step back for a moment.

I have not seen a single person Tell someone else they have to play a “Bad Unit”.

It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

 Anpu42 wrote:
It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

And what if "what I want" is to play the best units?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

And what if "what I want" is to play the best units?

Then You do so and I will play what I Want to, it’s that simple.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Then You do so and I will play what I Want to, it’s that simple.

If that's your answer then why did you post a long rant about "fun" lists and challenge people to justify playing a competitive list every game? Why not post a simple one-sentence "I sometimes like to play non-competitive lists" and leave it at that?

Peregrine wrote:

kanebbcksc wrote:
Further, some people are raised in environments that reward competitiveness and downplay the idea that the path to the finish line is where the actual fun is to be had (I.E. actually playing the game/sport).

Actually playing the sport is competition.

Winning or losing doesn't matter unless your pride depends on the accolades to get a boost.

Which is completely false. Yes, some people get an ego boost from the praise a winner sometimes gets, but the inherent value of out-competing your fellow players still has a lot of value.

I agree if you are playing the game and give any attempt to win whatsoever you are being competitive.

Most people grow out of playing with toy soldiers by themselves as the end result is always the same. The difference is that with rules and an opponent you can enjoy a competition and often socially bond through it. It is similar to any other game (or even sport) in that without any competition there is no game.

Have you ever played someone who gives up and stops trying to win? It is horrifically boring and it is better to just find another game than continue.

Also Peregrine is right that fluff and WAAC are not related. The elysians should be all flyers which can be overwhelming for many armies. There are many extremely powerful lists that are totally fluffy while still being far beyond the capabilities of some metas to handle.

kanebbcksc wrote:Love your approach UnadoptedPuppy!!!

Fluffy vs. WAAC vs. Competitive... Really, an individual's predefined expected result is tailored by two things: personal self-esteem and how they were raised (not any general human-nature, this doesn't exist in everyone). Competitiveness is not an ingrained human trait. Some people have deeply ingrained, and maybe not apparent to them, social and self-esteem issues that can be partially assuaged by winning games/sports/etc... You know, the whole feel-good I was better routine...
Further, some people are raised in environments that reward competitiveness and downplay the idea that the path to the finish line is where the actual fun is to be had (I.E. actually playing the game/sport). Winning or losing doesn't matter unless your pride depends on the accolades to get a boost.

This is a funny post in that you take a conditioned mind set of an individual and criticize it based on your own conditioned mind set. You assume your own belief system is superior and that assumption is patently not true. Both mind sets have their strengths and are only superior in a certain environment. You in fact assauged your own self esteem issues with your slightly condescending post aimed at the type A individuals.

Also their are ingrained human traits. The ability to think with a human type brain and a certain set of emotional and language abilities are human traits that shape how we think and what our responses are to stimuli. Not to mention what stimuli we can experience in the first place. All of these responses are conditioned and can be bent drastically with enough conditioning but there is a median for these traits that is the "natural" or "normal" state. Is a stockholm victim a natural or normal response to being kidnapped...not exactly but the human brain is flexible and can bend its response to suit the situation.


To the OP:
I think you may have been loose with the term "competitive". Did you mean completely WAAC and crush the opponent completely without any competition in the process? See that competitive implies that both parties have a significant chance of winning.

I think the majority of players want to have a game where the chance of victory is at least 20% for the opposition and the "competitive" gamers in my experience much prefer to play against other "competitive" players.

Some individuals do however have some issues where they do not want competition bu rather to assuage internal issues with domination of another individual in an arena they can. These individuals never make me mad (only sad) as they are dominating toy soldiers when they could have gotten so much more pleasure if they had just went into business, academia, or politics. These are your losing whiners and winning face rubbers (excluding the good natured ribbing of friends).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Then You do so and I will play what I Want to, it’s that simple.

If that's your answer then why did you post a long rant about "fun" lists and challenge people to justify playing a competitive list every game? Why not post a simple one-sentence "I sometimes like to play non-competitive lists" and leave it at that?

Well first Challenging is not telling.

Would I like to see people play more “Fun List”? Yes
Do I think that people should step out of their “Comfort Zone” and try something different? Yes
Did I want to see if others thought the same as me? Yes

I'm not really sure where I fall in the spectrum of players, but I generally like to be competitive when playing a game. To me that is one of the big reasons to play a game, if I don't want some form of competition I'll watch a movie.

That being said, when playing 40k I don't always take the best possible list to every game, but it is a natural inclination of mine to take units that aren't working and make them better. What I bring depends on a number of different factor including:
1) the cool factor of the models. (main reason I'll sometimes field Scourges and Hellions, Lady Malys w/ Bloodbrides, or Sgt Harker, etc)
2) does the army get me excited an force me to think about scenarios
3) am I bored with the army I've been playing with for a while
4) also, will an unusual list throw off my local meta a bit.
5) most importantly, what do I feel like running?

I do generally try to make my lists good, but I also want them to be interesting to me. I also don't want my opponent to bring a list that folds like a wet noodle. The best games are the ones you almost lost, I remember those games much better than the ones I steamrolled. As others have said, playing against someone who has no desire to win is a bit of a waste of time. At the same time, I don't have to be the best, and I do still want friends at the end of the game. I completely understand why some players hate tournament players, I've met the sort of people that have defined the stereotype. There are fluff players that are just as bad too though, they just spend their time in a different forum. I understand both spectra, but I also think both types take the game way too seriously.

Currently I don't really have time to play much, so I'm more of a painter and more into fluff right now. Someday however, I will have time to play, so while taking my time painting, I'm also building toward competitive and reasonably fluffy lists.

This is a 6th Edition Rebuild of an old “For Fun List”. In fact I have won with this list on multiple occasions.

2000 Pts - Space Wolves Roster - 2k Assault Wolves

Wolf Guard Battle Leader in Power Armour, 175 pts (Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Jump Pack; Wolf Claw x2; Warlord)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Wolf Priest in Power Armour, 160 pts (Wolf Amulet; Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Jump Pack; Bolt Pistol; Crozius Arcanum; Saga of the Wolfkin)
Skyclaw Assault Pack, 225 pts (Jump Pack; Power Armour; Bolt Pistol x8; Chainsword x8)
>Skyclaw w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Chainsword)
>Skyclaw w/ Power Fist (Flamer; Power Fist)

Wolf Guard Battle Leader in Power Armour, 185 pts (Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Space Marine Bike; Wolf Claw x2; Twin-Linked Boltgun)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Wolf Priest in Power Armour, 155 pts (Wolf Amulet; Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Space Marine Bike; Bolt Pistol; Crozius Arcanum; Twin-Linked Boltgun)
Swiftclaw Biker Pack, 330 pts (Melta Bombs; Bolt Pistol x9; Close Combat Weapon x9; Plasma gun; Power Lance; Twin-Linked Boltgun)

Grey Hunters Pack, 300 pts (Bolt Pistol x7; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma gun x2; Plasma Pistol)
>Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
>Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Power Armour; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)
>Rhino (Searchlight; Smoke Launchers; Dozer Blade; Extra Armour; Hunter-killer Missile; Pintle-mounted Storm Bolter; Storm Bolter)

Grey Hunters Pack, 300 pts (Bolt Pistol x7; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma gun x2; Plasma Pistol)
>Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
>Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Power Armour; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)
>Rhino (Searchlight; Smoke Launchers; Dozer Blade; Extra Armour; Hunter-killer Missile; Pintle-mounted Storm Bolter; Storm Bolter)

Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield)
2x Fenrisian Wolf

Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield)
2x Fenrisian Wolf

This is the kind of list I am talking about.
This was a fun list to play; in fact I might try it this weekend.

I enjoy playing competitive games and the tactical challenges that those games bring. Winning or losing every game I play I want my opponent to bring as much to the table as I do. I get a lot of enjoyment out of the strategy and tactics of it all. Does that mean I enjoy playing against the same net lists over and over? Hell no, but I at least want them to bring an army somewhat optimized list and play like they want to win rather than take a bunch of bad units and complain the whole game about how under powered their list is and how badly I'm beating them.

 Crimson wrote:
As for winning, I don't care about it that much, but I care about exiting games, and that usually means even and hard fought ones. I rather marginally lose an exiting battle that could've gone either way, than win a boring game where I utterly crush the enemy and the result is clear from the start.

In any case, I find that games tend games to be more interesting when people have armies with a lot of varied units with different abilities, instead of just spamming one or two most powerful units.

I think playing competitively and building lists competitively are two different things. Most people like the first, not all like the second.

I agree with this first point wholeheartedly. Playing competitively doesn't mean wanting to steamroll people and then kick them while they're down, it means doing your best to compete and have a game where it really does come down to the skill of the players and could possibly go either way.

The second I agree with as well, but that may just be the Eldar player in me, where you have to have a varied army to do well. It's a lot more interesting to see on the table, but I think it usually comes down to the player and their attitude more than the list they're bringing. Even someone with the cheesiest list can be fun to play against if they have the right attitude, while someone with the fluffiest list can be unbearable.

List building is definitely part of the game. It's as much a part of the game as training and tryouts are for a sports team. It's preparation and getting your tools set for the job, and choosing the right tools is very important. That doesn't necessarily have to be the tools to dominate the opposition, but the tools to play the ame you want to play.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

And what if "what I want" is to play the best units?

people start calling you cheeseball behind your back and stop playing you?

what's the point of trying to optimize a beer and pretzels "narrative" game. If the game had a tight intuitive ruleset I could see more of a reason to get competitive about it.

On a more serious note, if people want to run a certain kind of list let them. If they want to run an ompitmized list then that's their right as is your right to put a list together made up of bad units. I use these lists because I want to have a fun game. Having my army fall apart like wet tissue paper isn't very fun.

kb305 wrote:
people start calling you cheeseball behind your back and stop playing you?

Not if you play with people that feel the same way about the game.

Can you see how a "competitive playgroup" would dislike it when a player brings a list that is just for fun, fielding bad units and stuff?

I think we can all agree that most players like a challenge and prefer to be matched against lists of the same 'level'.
Fun lists VS competitive lists seem boring for both parties.
The fun-list has no chance of winning and the competitive list lacks a challenge.
I have yet to meet a player that enjoys steamrolling over every opponent all the time.

From the desk of TheCaptain, a "Competitive Gamer" who fully advocates cheese, FW, and powergaming:

Well.

Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but:

I enjoy winning. I love it, in fact. I play sports, video games, and warhammer, and love winning with all of it.

But I've had the same list for about 8 months now. It's (IMO) a perfect list. Min-maxed to the highest extent. Plenty of cheesy units, plenty of cheap tricks in it that some would say are unfair.

I always bring that list to the LGS, and for the past 8 months I've been winning Tournament games, and going undefeated in LGS pickup games.

But. There is a but.

But there are new players, kids, and bad players at my LGS.

I will always play my Tourney list against good, familiar players, and I always offer to use it to new faces/opponents. But, to the latter group, I also offer to use my "fun list".

You see, after handily stomping a few people with sub-optimal lists, I felt bad. I could tell the game wasn't fun for them. I did two things:

1. I sat down with them and asked if they wanted their list to be a fun one with units they "liked", or if they wanted to play in tournaments with it. If their answer was the latter, I would pull out their armylist, and help them out. Assist in writing them a new list and telling them some good advice. Then we would rematch, and they'd have much more fun with their far-better list.

2. I wrote a crappy list. Wicked mediocre. Uncomfortably so, in fact. I would never field it against a good player. But I focused on making the models beautiful, and fluffing that bad-boy up. After destroying guys that never had a chance, I decided I didn't like that all too much, so I wrote up said fluffy list that would give them a shot.

So if you like beating up on people who aren't very good, that's fine. That's on you, and no one here should be mad. Winning is satisfying. I know it, you know it, and your opponent should realize that you enjoy winning. But If you're with me, and think that winning is kindof irrelevant if your opponent isn't very good, then it shouldn't be a factor. Fostering a better player in your opponent matters. I'd rather take it easy on a new-guy, show him the ropes, and give advice, so that one day he's good enough to give me a run for my money. Because while beating someone is fun, beating a good player is more fun than beating a bad player.

TL;DR: If I play good opponents, I wreck them with my good list.

If I play bad/mediocre opponents, I offer to use my good list, or my fluffy one. Either way, I help them with advice and gaming-knowledge so that in a few months, they might actually be a good enough challenge to merit playing against my good-list for real.

TLDR of my TLDR: Winning a game is rewarding. But it's not a game if your opponent is in a whole different skill-level than you.

-TheCaptain

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, forum discussion assumes a competitive list because how well a list wins is the only objective thing you can discuss. What is "fluffy" or "fun" is entirely subjective, so once you come up with a list of "fluffy" or "fun" things you want to use there's nothing left to talk about.

Rubbish. You can discuss how to use the list, for a start, how to use individual units, try to come up with interesting synergies. This idea that any discussion of 40K tactics is dependent entirely on the construction of the list is the main reason I dislike competitive play, because it's not about competing to see who's the better general, it's about competing to see who can cram the most loophole-filled poorly-balanced units into a list. The reason the non-ultra-competitive types don't like asking for advice here is because no matter what they ask for advice about, all the competitive forumers are willing to give them is "that unit sucks, that unit sucks, that unit sucks, here spam this and this instead". If I ask "what is the best way to use X in the context of my army" then "don't use X, hurpa durr" is not useful information, but it's likely all I'll get because of this attitude that discussing anything but the most competitive builds is pointless.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

List building is definitely part of the game. It's as much a part of the game as training and tryouts are for a sports team. It's preparation and getting your tools set for the job, and choosing the right tools is very important. That doesn't necessarily have to be the tools to dominate the opposition, but the tools to play the ame you want to play.

This is certainly true, and I of course consider different capabilities of units when building my lists. However, there are other things that affect the list building decisions as well, such as look of the models and the theme and feel of the units. I'm slowly building my IG allied contingent (that I hope in future can be expanded to a full army) and I focus on infantry squads and tanks instead of veterans and Vendettas. This is just a feel thing to me. I want classic tanks and mooks style of an IG force, rather than flying rapid assaut veteran force. I realise the latter would be better, but that is not the sort of army I want to play. I think most people's decisions are somewhat influenced by things like this, after all, otherwise we all would be playing Necrons*.

(* Peregrine, why are you not playing Necrons instead of IG?)

 Yodhrin wrote:
You can discuss how to use the list, for a start, how to use individual units, try to come up with interesting synergies.

Yes, but the OP is talking about list building, not coming up with tactics for bad units that you've decided to use even though they're bad.

 Crimson wrote:
(* Peregrine, why are you not playing Necrons instead of IG?)

Because I started playing IG before the current Necron codex (back when the models sucked and the rules were worse), and because IG are still a powerful army. Necrons are good, but they don't automatically win against every possible opponent.

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think everyone needs to take a step back for a moment.

I have not seen a single person Tell someone else they have to play a “Bad Unit”.

It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

most codex have either "the best" which I would call good or the bad. A SW player wont have BC and why would he want to use them . An IG player wont have storm troopers , because they are bad . A necron player wont have flayed ones because they are bad . Some armies dont even have a choice . nids or sisters of battles sometimes have 1 unit per slot . If someone builds a tyranids army without tyrants , guants , tervigons , hive guard and brain bugs then what is left to play with ? stealer spam wont even get in to melee in 6th ed . warriors do nothing to flyers and making a non optimal would cost ton of cash , 5-6 units of 10 stealers 5-6 finecast broodlords 8-12 warriors. one could buy the start of a new good army with the money.

it's likely all I'll get because of this attitude that discussing anything but the most competitive builds is pointless.

if something is bad then there is no good way to use a unit . What are people suppose to say , if a list wont work at all , unless someone changes like 2/3 of the units and most of the gear , more or less making it a diferent list ?

I wrote a crappy list. Wicked mediocre. Uncomfortably so, in fact. I would never field it against a good player. But I focused on making the models beautiful, and fluffing that bad-boy up. After destroying guys that never had a chance, I decided I didn't like that all too much, so I wrote up said fluffy list that would give them a shot.

you must be very rich , if you have whole collection of armies and units to build bad lists and have enough strenght to carry them around with you .

 Peregrine wrote:

Because I started playing IG before the current Necron codex (back when the models sucked and the rules were worse), and because IG are still a powerful army. Necrons are good, but they don't automatically win against every possible opponent.

No, but no army does. You however must recognise that Necrons are stronger book than IG (which still certainly is good.) Now your list building options are dictated by things other than what is optimal, in this case mostly the time and money involved collecting another army. Did you originally choose IG because you thought it was the most powerful army (at the time) or were there other reasons as well? Do you like the feel, background, and/or models of the army?

 Crimson wrote:
You however must recognise that Necrons are stronger book than IG (which still certainly is good.)

Actually no, I don't think this is true. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and you can't say that one is clearly better than the other.

Did you originally choose IG because you thought it was the most powerful army (at the time) or were there other reasons as well? Do you like the feel, background, and/or models of the army?

Cool models mostly, and fluff-wise they were good allies for my Tau. But that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

needing to win is really more of a kid's mentality. little kids need to win or they throw a tantrum. and they dont think about others, they are selfish. although im sure some immature adults are the same way. these are also the people who cheat. kid likes to win alot so he even bends the rules/dice to make sure that he does.

then you grow up and you appreciate the craftsmanship and art of it, the models that you like, nice terrain and as long as you and your opponenet both have fun it's all good.

kb305 wrote:
needing to win is really more of a kid's mentality. little kids need to win or they throw a tantrum. and they dont think about others, they are selfish. although im sure some immature adults are the same way. these are also the people who cheat. kid likes to win alot so he even bends the rules/dice to make sure that he does.

Oh good, this is the part of the discussion where we resort to insulting stereotypes and confuse "playing competitively" and "cheating". Good to know that you're not here for a constructive discussion.

Also, you know what's funny? For all the hate competitive players get for being "TFG" they usually aren't the ones calling people childish and insisting that anyone who enjoys a different aspect of the game than they do is a horrible person and ruining the game.

then you grow up and you appreciate the craftsmanship and art of it, the models that you like, nice terrain and as long as you and your opponenet both have fun it's all good.

Or you grow up and appreciate the challenge of matching skill vs. skill in a competitive game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Actually no, I don't think this is true. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and you can't say that one is clearly better than the other.

I'm not sure I agree, but that is a too long discussion to be had here.

Cool models mostly, and fluff-wise they were good allies for my Tau. But that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Of course it does! Your decision was based on things other than pure competitiveness, and that is exactly the sort of thinking the OP wanted to encourage. You ally your Tau with IG instead of Necrons or Chaos Marines because it makes more sense fluff-wise, and I put Sentinels in my IG force because I like the models.

Why is it important that you have a competitive list?

For me and my group, if we aren't playing competitive lists then it feels like we're pulling punches. We feel like we're playing the hollow shell of a game and that one of us is trying to gimp himself in order to make the playing field more even. We consider it an insult generally. If most of the folks in your gaming group are competent generals then you should too. It's an amazing feeling to go toe to toe with someone without handicaps and come out on top. It's one part of the game, and one you don't have to take part in. You're free to take your non-comp, fluff lists but I don't think you should get bent out of shape about it because your fluffy list can't win against a total comp/cheese list.

Like many people have said: Competitive lists and play are one aspect of the game. Your idea of semi-comp/fluff lists are another. You don't have to participate in their 40k, and they don't have to participate in yours. We can't all come to some sort of touchy-feely "Why can't we ALL use Rough Riders?" agreement and gimp ourselves for other people's amusement. I don't see why it's much of a problem. You can always find different people to play against if you want to do narrative style campaigns.

Be Zen about it. I never see Competitive players whining about people bringing fluff lists. And if people really didn't care about winning then I don't think people with fluff lists would ever complain about people bringing competitive lists.

Now, I do take semi-comp/fluff lists from time to time. But, that's only against newer players or if our entire group agrees on a narrative campaign. So...do that wherever you are. Ask everyone to do a narrative campaign and encourage the use of units that are total bunk. If you have regular opponents, then ask them if they'd do battles with fluff lists/under powered units. If they won't and would rather play a comp list then let them. Seek out others until you find opponents that want to take part in this particular version of 40k that you like.

Post Script: Anyone in the world who claims that they don't care about winning is a liar. There is no one in the universe that likes to lose. You don't get the warm fuzzys from losing. You may think that you don't care about winning because it's not your top priority, but if you lose enough times in a row you'll find yourself really itching for a victory. It's something in all of us. We all like to triumph over others in games/sports/etc.

Be Zen about it. I never see Competitive players whining about people bringing fluff lists. And if people really didn't care about winning then I don't think people with fluff lists would ever complain about people bringing competitive lists.

Yes, yes they do. You've heard the "Man it's gotten boring stomping these pubbies into the ground" crowd and the "Why can't these people bring the top tier units? Why did they even buy those worthless models that shouldn't be played". "He's got a cool looking theme army, but man he should just proxy that army for everything else that doesn't suck."

Post Script: Anyone in the world who claims that they don't care about winning is a liar. There is no one in the universe that likes to lose. You don't get the warm fuzzys from losing. You may think that you don't care about winning because it's not your top priority, but if you lose enough times in a row you'll find yourself really itching for a victory. It's something in all of us. We all like to triumph over others in games/sports/etc.

Probably not, but an enjoyable game is far more enjoyable then one built specifically to top tier codex specifications. Some people enjoy winning with a sub-par list, some people just want to actually enjoy the setting, and not everyone is going to enjoy learning that he spent +XX Dollars or Pounds on something that is so completely worthless that he begins to question why it's even sold.

Of course if GW balanced things so that EVERYTHING could be useful in some manner, we wouldn't be having these damn conversations to begin with. Because there would be no Trap Models/Units

A number of things that I feel the need to address... First of all, I really shouldn’t reply to these kind of threads because I know that they will (most likely) in the end result in no more constructive synthesis than: “You have your opinion and we have ours…” …BUT I can’t help myself.

First of all I started reading the text of the OP, and I agree and understand and I have found myself in similar situations. I play SoB, which kind of tells people that I am not a hard core competitive player. (Yes, they can be a bit competitive but I even play without St. Celestine!) I could easily go out today and spend 1000$ on a new army if I wanted to, being a middle aged “DINK” (double-income-no-kids). In fact I will most likely spend that amount on the new Eldar when they arrive because I like them. So I could get the FOTM-army, the WAAC list, the net list of the current meta, but I choose not to. The game should be played because one likes it. No matter if one simply likes to win or to have a good time with friends, neither is exclusive to the other mind you. However, after reading the OP I just sat down and waited for the first competitive or WAAC to come around and lay into the thread. Seriously, the words “fun”, “fluffy” or “casual” is like pouring blood into the water and wait for the sharks on forums in general and on Dakka in particular. It is always the same. Winning equals fun, fun is subjective (which it is) and WAAC can be fluffy. And still, I honestly think that many (if not the overwhelming majority) of casual, non-competitive gamers have a view upon “fun” and “fluff” that differs sooooo much from what über-competitive gamers and WAMCs (win at most costs) consider. Heck, when I, as a fluffy beer and pretzels guy, read a thread about fun and fluff I get a feeling that whoever is talking talks about a relaxed, friendly, non-cutthroat game where the mutual fun is paramount. And yet, every time someone posts about the fun and fluffy kind of games that we fun and fluffy kind of players knows about the competitive players need to come around and state that playing the strong net lists with the purpose to win is the fun way to play (according to them), I would just like to say that from the perspective of the casual gamer… well… it’s not.

The thing is, according to me, is that the majority of gamers aren’t competitive, aren’t tournament players and most of all don’t spend much (if any) time on forums like these. So here on Dakka and among the active posters we get a proportional over representation of the WAMCs because the relaxed, friendly and fluffy kind of gamers that are out there in the real world aren’t in here and even if they are, they wouldn’t bother to post replies or threads of their own because they know that they will be shot down, told to L2P, that their units suck, that they suck, lol:ed at or in other ways told that they are playing wrongly, badly or some other adverb you find appropriate.
So to the OP, I don’t think that you will find the answer you are looking for here on Dakka and more importantly, not from the people who will reply to your thread. As you have seen, quite a few of them aren’t really that constructive… The best answer that I can think of is just that, to some people, the tournament players, the competitive, the WAACs and the TFGs winning is simply such a big deal that it is simply not on their redar to play the game any other way. If they aren't playing to win with the most competitive lists possible they don't feel that it is worth it. From my own personal, non-competitive point of view I wonder why? And from here on I am quite serious and NOT trying to be offensive or step on anyones toes or such. But I wonder if it stems from low self esteem, taking a nerdy hobby way too serious in some form of escapism, compensating for other self-perceived short comings in their lives or whatever. In the end, many posters (and gamers) that a couple of years ago made me angry or frustrated today simply makes me sad. I honestly pity them. If a hobby conducted with small plastic men becomes that serious... well. On the other hand I have never understood what the big deal is with rooting for a soccer team, adhearing to a religion or the benfit of nationalism either And I guess we can all see that we humans can discuss those things in a calm and peacefull way...

Just read the latest reply and had to address some things there. I made a few attempts to get back into the tournament scene in Sweden. I used to play some WHFB before but quit and thought about trying out 40K. In ended badly! As a non-competitive player with a sub-optimal list I was actually told by the hard core players that I should leave and that I had nothing to do on “their” tournaments. My list and my style of play was screwing up their precious ranking system and it was unfair that some players “got lucky” with me as their opponent and gained points that other players, who fought Night-Scythe spam lists, didn’t. Again, I would just like to point out that I am not saying that they were wrong. I did bring a list, a view on the game and a mentality that wasn’t suitable for tournament play and I really had nothing to do there. As the post above says, they don’t want to pull their punches. So the tournament scene will always be “tougher” and the online forums will be tougher still. Not because of human nature, not because that competitive lists are the only way, not because we all want to win (and not all of us want that, I would rather lose a good and fun game than win a bad one). Perhaps it is the old school pen-and-paper role player who still thinks that a game of 40K in its truest essence doesn’t have a winner just like there is no winner after a late night of eating pizza, drawing maps, rolling dice, battling bad guys and saving the world with your role playing group. You are all winners if you had a fun night!

So… in the end, you have your opinion and we have ours. I will (again) end with the words of Pierre de Coubertin. Since there was a lot of talk about sports, competitiveness and the importance of winning:

L'important dans la vie ce n'est point le triomphe, mais le combat, l'essentiel ce n'est pas d'avoir vaincu mais de s'être bien battu.

The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Agusto

Agusto wrote:

The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Agusto

This line right here is exactly what most competitive players really want, though. You've got to understand, it's that everyone wants to win, not that we always have to win, so we're going to try to win, and hope our opponents do the same. I agree 100% that I'd rather lose a close game than win a ridiculously easy one, but the best way for those close games to happen (especially when getting random pick-up games at the LGS or on Vassal) is if everyone brings their A-game and plays to win. I'm not saying everyone should be playing net-list IG and Necrons all the time, hell I play Eldar, but, unless agreed upon beforehand, what a competitive player wants from a pick-up game is for people to put in the effort. This doesn't mean only taking the best units in the book, but it does mean bringing a cohesive force that you can play effectively, or think that you can. It DEFINITELY doesn't mean playing WAAC and sacrificing fun, it means seeing the fun in pitting your skill against someone else's. Like I said earlier, if my opponent gets on a hot streak, or pulls a really impressive move, I will definitely congratulate him, and be really glad that he's having fun, and still be having fun myself even if I'm losing because player attitude is the most important part of the game. Competing doesn't mean not having fun until the game is over, victory in hand. The little moments are still enjoyable. It's just the overarching mindset of the game.

It is funny how we see time and again the "fluff vs. competitive".

I am going to take a bit of a risk here in saying that 40k is more "fluff" than anything remotely competitive.

It is very obvious what armies have an "inherent" advantage but what limits us is the cost of the models, the build and paint time put in: we do not switch armies on a whim (typically). We spend HUGE time getting them together that gameplay seems like an afterthought even if it is the goal (and to win, oh yes...).

Rules like in chess are airtight, so support a more competitive game play.

There are so many grey zones in 40k, the rules that evolve over time with each new suppliment and FAQ it feels more like a wargame narrative (RPG?) tool than some "sport".

I think the "competitive" lists are made as a threat to be used against those who refuse to "play nice". It gives the message that I too can ruin your fun if you cannot commit to a vision of a big epic battle with a story line rather than a meat grinder.

When you think of the ratio of text for "fluff" vs actual rules written it is probably around twenty to one so you know where GW is leaning. I would think if more focus was on the rules rather than the creative writing, people could get their more competitive game.

I agree and I understand what you are saying Mandaloryn. The thing however that the game is unbalanced (whether this is a calculated business plan from GW or simply the unintentional result of bad game design is another issue) and is not helped in any way by individual players who are adding to the issue of imbalance by list building based on the over efficient, unfairly priced or outright broken units. This becomes an issue when certain players, myself therein included, want to participate with what they conceive to be a fun and balanced list (please note that I hereby admit to fun being subjective and that people have different tastes and preferences) and find themselves at a complete loss. It doesn't matter what kind of “A-game” you bring unless you bring THE A-game. The net list, the one list to rule them all. Because even if you play to win, even if you are a decent enough player and with a better than average rolls of the dice, there are armies and lists that will quite frankly roll all over you.

As I stated before, I am not a competitive player. I should not participate in events where I am supposed to bring my A-game and hold back my punches. Those events are for those who enjoy that kind of playing and I can imagine that they must be ridiculously exciting, fun and challenging if you are of the competitive sort. But the competitive sort tends to dominate not just most (if not all) of the tournaments, they even control the hobby beyond the actual tournament. A few years ago I went to a small and relaxed (those were the words used to market the event) tournament in the city I had recently moved to, I brought my “fun” and “fluffy” (Come on sharks, blood in the water! Please tell us “fluffy” players that our definition of the word doesn't match yours, please, I beg you!) army and was completely massacred by the A-game armies and lists of that day and age. It didn't matter how I played, I lost... big time. Some time after that I went to the active gaming group of the city in order to get some more gaming going, only to find that the group was dominated and controlled by the same (WAMCs) people who I had bumped into before. And after a few years away from competitive gaming I return and STILL find them there. The kind of players for whom “competitive lists are so important every single time” as the OP wanted to discuss. I have tried to speak out for a more relaxed tournament scene here in Sweden or for some way for us beer and pretzel gamers to participate in events in order to meet new people, face new armies, builds and tactics and generally have good time... but the hard core tournament scene isn't interested in that. It is competitive gaming through and through. And let's not start talking about comp because the WAMCs will simply try to break the system in the best and most obvious way they possibly can. So the hard-core people, as they always have; in sport, in religion, in politics and in life in general will rule over those who take things slightly less serious.

What I am trying to say is that there are a lot of players who would like for the hobby to become more relaxed, carefree and happy-go-lucky. But the tournament scene, the gaming groups and the internet forums won't cater to their needs and if they try they will be shot down. We understand that you competitive players want to play rough and like it that way, we accept that and we understand why you want to play that way. The excitement, the fun, the challenges and in the end the battles of pure skill! But somehow it feels like the competitive players fails to understand that there are those who would like to play in a more “fluffy” way and that they, us, we are having a hard time being heard, seen or given any space even though I personally suspect that we are the vast majority of the players.

Agusto

Many people like to think that there is a gulf between bringing a fluffy army, and a competitive one. That is simply not the case.
A fluffy army is one that has a theme, a back story, and a certain feel to it.
True fluff gamers are interested with how their army expresses the back story. There might be self imposed limits built into it, but then i find fluffy armies can be as carefully picked as non fluffy ones. After all, it does your characters back story no good if he gets killed all the time, does it?

Where the 'Competitive' tag usually gets used (abused??) by others is when the person picking the army simply picks the most powerful units in a codex (or codices) with no thought to the back story, simply to make what he percieves as the most powerful army he can. I fought a 1500 point 'Blood angel' army, that had a total of 13 Blood angels models in it, out of about 40 guys.
It was effective, but it wasn't a blood angels army, and the guy bringing it was also the WAAC rules lawyering hygiene deficient type, so he really in one person could define what people see a competitive gamer as being. but, despite this, he was tabled twice in a row. once by A very 'fluffy' Emperors children army (units of 6) and then by my own Necrons (nemensor zahndrehk) who left the wraiths, spyders and deathmarks at home.

I'm fairly certain that i can pick a better list (more optimised/points efficient), with what are regarded as being the better units, but it doesn't mean that i will deliberately pick a weak list, select sub optimal choices outside of my self imposed limits, or upon the battlefield, not try to win. it simply means that i want my army to tell a story.

Fluffy armies don't have to be weak, and competitive armies aren't by definition strong, they are simply an expression of how you as a player want them to work. My Necron army, based on the Cohort of Nemensor Zahndrehk, is fluffy, and its (in my opinion) fairly strong to boot.

There is also the added fact that the majority of games will be pick up games, and in a pickup game, fluff or no fluff, you will at least try to give yourself the best chances of winning.
Fluffy armies excel in narrative campaigns though, where the story is almost as important as winning or losing. I recently played a game, using the kill team rules where we refought the boarding action on Horus' battlebarge. Sanguinus still died, horus still crippled the emperor, but it was Rogal Dorn who killed Horus (with a Thunder-hammer to the head) . And i decided to use that in my own Imperial fists narrative rather than the 'historical' events.

Tournaments, pick up games or narrative campaigns, i pick fluffy armies, but i play competitively.

Agusto: Everything you're saying is totally valid, and I agree that it is unfair how hard it is for you to find the type of game you want to play. But another aspect of this is definitely the money. When models are as expensive as they are, a lot of people don't want to put down the money for units that won't perform well, or that won't see a lot of play time. When the majority of people at the LGS are fine playing against a "competitive" army, it's not too cost-effective to spend the time and money buying and painting units that'll hardly see the table. It's all about getting the most bang for your buck.

My enjoyment of the game has nothing to do with lists, but more about the attitude of the player putting their list on the table.

I have played WAAC lists with awesome opponents (tournament or game store setting) where I still had a lot of fun getting my teeth kicked in because THEY were awesome to play a game with.

I've also had numerous experiences of playing WAAC/Netlist/Fluffly themed lists with players who constantly accuse your list of being cheesey, question your every move, argue about rules, throw a tantrum when things don't go their way, or just blatantly cheat with fudged movement and dice. Those games suck regardless of the models on the table.

Its the person not the list that makes playing wargames memorable and fun.

You also have to accept that this is not a balanced game. Take any two "fluffy" lists or even two "WAAC" lists bump them together and you will find enough discrepancies in power levels where barring dice you can get a pretty decent prediction of what is going to happen.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Now Back to my Point:
In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

It doesn't. But it's easier to discuss the game from the perspective that it does.

Consider this. A player, in a non-competitive venue, is having trouble defeating opponents. He posts on dakka asking for help. He posts his list, and gets told that what he's bringing isn't competitive. Well, he's not playing competitively, why should that matter? Because he's looking to improve his performance. Non-competitive is a euphemism for bad, and you can't help someone improve their game without being able to communicate to them why their units are bad, and what units are good. As such, we spend a lot of time talking about what's competitive and what isn't. It doesn't mean we play every game like that. But, it's like art, or music, in which you need to know the rules before you can break them. It isn't until you understand what makes something competitive that you can consciously take non-competitive options; if you can't tell the difference, you're just fumbling either way.

Why do you complain about not using their Favorite Units, because they are are not as good as you think they should be?

To me, when I get upset about this, it isn't about not using the unit, it's about the really bad job that GW game designers do. In an ideal world, you could build an army around the units that look cool, and it would be competitive. That will never be the case with GW writing the rules though.

Why do you shelve entire armies because you “New Codex” was not what you wanted it to be?

Some of us have limited time to play games, and tournaments provide a convenient way to get three or four games in on a day. If you're going to a tournament, you owe it to your opponent to try and put up a good fight, and so if your army gets nerfed into oblivion by the inadequacies of GW rules dev, then you're not fulfilling your side of the social contract when you continue to play it at a tournament. At that point, you have two options - don't play it anymore, or spend more money. Is it really surprising that people shelve the army?

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

Because GW can't write rules that support this approach to the game. Consider the latest Tau codex. I have a hammerhead. It's already built and has what used to be two burst cannons on it. With the new codex, however, those two burst cannons are now one twin-linked burst cannon, so I lost two S5 shots (and mathematically, .5 of a S5 hit). Meanwhile, the other option, the one I don't have modeled, is a Smart Missile System. This used to cost more points for fewer shots, but not need line-of-sight or allow cover saves. Now, it costs the same amount of points, has the same number of shots, still has the advantages with regard to LoS and Cover, and have greater range. If I just take the model I want to play (the one I own), I've lost 12" and significant benefits with no reduction in point cost.

Could you not have a good game will All “Bad Units” as you could with an All “Good Unit” game?

Sometimes, it depends on why the unit is bad. Some units are perfectly reasonable, and are simply overpriced. They're "bad" because there are less expensive alternatives that perform the same role. The Hammerhead option I mention above is one of these. It's a perfectly adequate tank as I already have it, it's just not as good as one with the Smart Missiles. You can have fun with these options, you can even win games with them, although if your opponent is using more optimal selections, you may be facing an uphill battle.

Then there are the unusable options. These are bad not because they're overpriced, but because they don't actual fulfill the role they're tentatively designed to fill. No matter how cheap you make a unit like this, it's not going to be worth playing with.

Competitive lists get more attention because they're really the only ones that merit discussion.

I don't need feedback to help me build a friendly list. I pick the units I like, throw them together and have fun.

If I'm preparing for a tournament, I'm going to get as much input as possible. I'll talk to people, ask for feedback on my list, play practice games, research and all that jazz.

When I'm going out to game, I just bring 2 lists: competitive and friendly. I'll ask my opponent what sort of game he's looking for and pick the appropriate list. Boom, done.

Note: I have enjoyed reading everything, whether I agreed with it or not.

 Redbeard wrote:
Because GW can't write rules that support this approach to the game. Consider the latest Tau codex. I have a hammerhead. It's already built and has what used to be two burst cannons on it. With the new codex, however, those two burst cannons are now one twin-linked burst cannon, so I lost two S5 shots (and mathematically, .5 of a S5 hit). Meanwhile, the other option, the one I don't have modeled, is a Smart Missile System. This used to cost more points for fewer shots, but not need line-of-sight or allow cover saves. Now, it costs the same amount of points, has the same number of shots, still has the advantages with regard to LoS and Cover, and have greater range. If I just take the model I want to play (the one I own), I've lost 12" and significant benefits with no reduction in point cost.

So this stops you from taking it off the shelf for games in a “Non-Competitive” Because it lost some “Combat Effectiveness”?

Here is my “Hammer Head” Situation: Björn Fellhanded
Björn now has 3 Hull Points, that’s not bad, but I have the old Metal version of him with the Assault Cannon. The Assault Canon means I have to get him close to things like Melta and Plasma Weapons. In 5th I would wade into Nob Mobs without fear. This is now a suicide run for him now. Currently I am loosing him to 150 point Rifleman Dreads glancing him to death.
I did not build him, I got him off EBay. He is such a nice model built so much above my skill level I can’t just pop off the arm to put on a Las-Cannon or Plasma Cannon on him. So were does that leave me, I use him as is, “Proxy” one of the other weapons, use him as a normal Dread or let him gather dust.
This is the solution I came up with, just keep using him as is until I can get a new Björn, and I am not in a hurry to this.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Competitive lists get more attention because they're really the only ones that merit discussion.

I don't need feedback to help me build a friendly list. I pick the units I like, throw them together and have fun.

If I'm preparing for a tournament, I'm going to get as much input as possible. I'll talk to people, ask for feedback on my list, play practice games, research and all that jazz.

When I'm going out to game, I just bring 2 lists: competitive and friendly. I'll ask my opponent what sort of game he's looking for and pick the appropriate list. Boom, done.

This guy answered the question perfectly.

 Anpu42 wrote:

So this stops you from taking it off the shelf for games in a “Non-Competitive” Because it lost some “Combat Effectiveness”?

Uh, no. I was using the hammerhead as an example of how GW simply doesn't write rules that support a 'take whatever you want and expect them to work' mentality. Sure, I can use it (as I described below, in the section you didn't include in your quote block), and only lose a little effectiveness relative to running the SMS. But when I use it as such, I also recognize that I am not playing optimally (which can be a good thing), and that if I were to go to a tournament with it, I should probably replace those weapons.

I think a big issue is that there is no standard definition of the terminology used here. 'Competative' can mean different things, largely dependent on context.

I tend to see it used as another term for WAAC, or cheesy spam net lists. While I personally view the word competitive as just a descriptor, meaning a list that synergizes well within the player's theme or parameters, rather than one a specific type of army (ex: WAAC, Tourney, Casual). I believe there are competitive or non-competative WAAC and Tourney lists, and the same goes for fluffy or casual lists. I think the terminology and analogy used above by Prince Raven states it very well. A competative list should simply be defined as one that synergizes well, regardless whether it is WAAC, Tourney (upper tier), or Fluff/Casua (lower tier).

I think to truly have an efficient, effective discussion on this type of thing, a clear standard definition of list types is required, and to stop reinforcing the perceived superiority or inferiority of one list over another. Simply work to make sure the list works smoothly within the given theme. A clear, standard definition of list types would also ensure everyone's understanding of exactly what is meant by the OP.

I also feel based on the experiences within my meta, granted they are few, that this topic, along with most others, gets blown waaaay out of proportion on Dakka, as much as I love this place. There is a distinct focus on what I define as Tourney geared lists, regardless of the fact that most games played by the average player are not in tournaments. This emphasis gives the impression that anything that isn't tuned up to dominate a tournament is a weak, invalid list and that judgment carries on to the players themselves at times. I don't personally feel the last part, but I did initially feel pressure to have to have a tuned up Tourney list or I was a bad gamer wastin everyone's time and my money.

I've since come to realize the importance of list synergy over all else. I will doubtfully ever play in a tournament (even so I'd take it much more casually). Creativity and theme is more important to me. That said I still want to be an interesting, competative opponent. My success of that is dependent on how well my units work together, and how well I use them, as much as or more so than what the specific units are.

My personal issue with the "if your lists don't conform to net-accepted competitive standards, they are bad, and you should feel bad for taking it" is that it prevents the kind of discussion that leads to expanding the meta and getting more varied games. For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

In other words, the "must conform to our competitive expectations" group tends to crowd out any discussion of "what if" scenarios. You can't talk about how best to build a Mech Tau list without Riptides, since everyone will just tell you that Devilfish suck and you suck for wanting to bring them, get your Aegis and castle up like everyone else is. You can't discuss how to run Dantewing, because Dantewing is totally suboptimal and Blood Angels aren't competitive anyway, go build yourself a Draigowing army instead. You can't discuss how to run a NId army without Tervigons, because you're obviously brain dead if you don't see how awesome they are, so why would anyone waste their time on you? You can't discuss how best to run a Chaos Raptor focused list, because Raptors suck and you suck for thinking they could ever work in any conceivable scenario ever. Which means that these players - who do in fact wish to become more competitive or at least have a fighting chance with the thematic lists they want to run - get essentially no constructive feedback that would help them tweak their lists accordingly.

It's incredibly frustrating. I've got no problem going up against Draigowing or Psychic Choir Nids or Beastpack Shenanigans or whatever. I don't consider them terribly imaginative, but I don't have an issue playing against them or losing to them. I do, however, have a problem with the idea that there is ONE TRUE WAY to play WH40k, and that's by using net-approved lists specifically optimized to maximally exploit the asymmetric game mechanical advantage of a few poorly balanced units in a codex, or combination of those across a couple codexes.

 Crimson wrote:
Of course it does! Your decision was based on things other than pure competitiveness, and that is exactly the sort of thinking the OP wanted to encourage. You ally your Tau with IG instead of Necrons or Chaos Marines because it makes more sense fluff-wise, and I put Sentinels in my IG force because I like the models.

But I never said that nobody should ever play with anything less than a perfectly optimized list. I said that:

1) Playing with a perfectly optimized list (or a list optimized beyond some arbitrary point of "too competitive") is a legitimate way of enjoying the game, and people who do so are under no obligation to justify their decision or waste some of their games by playing with a less-optimized list just for the sake of using bad/different units.

2) If you want tactical advice on how to use a less-than-optimal unit you need to clearly say "I know this unit is bad, but how can I use it as well as possible?" or the discussion will naturally turn to the fact that you shouldn't use the unit at all.

Veskrashen wrote:
For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

Except that's not what Ailaros asked, he asked whether it is a viable option, not how to use the non-viable option as well as possible. Seriously, don't try to white knight for him when he even posted to explicitly reject the "I still want tactics for a bad unit" argument and claim that the unit is a viable one that should be used on its own merits, not just to do something different.

Veskrashen wrote:
My personal issue with the "if your lists don't conform to net-accepted competitive standards, they are bad, and you should feel bad for taking it" is that it prevents the kind of discussion that leads to expanding the meta and getting more varied games. For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

In other words, the "must conform to our competitive expectations" group tends to crowd out any discussion of "what if" scenarios. You can't talk about how best to build a Mech Tau list without Riptides, since everyone will just tell you that Devilfish suck and you suck for wanting to bring them, get your Aegis and castle up like everyone else is. You can't discuss how to run Dantewing, because Dantewing is totally suboptimal and Blood Angels aren't competitive anyway, go build yourself a Draigowing army instead. You can't discuss how to run a NId army without Tervigons, because you're obviously brain dead if you don't see how awesome they are, so why would anyone waste their time on you? You can't discuss how best to run a Chaos Raptor focused list, because Raptors suck and you suck for thinking they could ever work in any conceivable scenario ever. Which means that these players - who do in fact wish to become more competitive or at least have a fighting chance with the thematic lists they want to run - get essentially no constructive feedback that would help them tweak their lists accordingly.

It's incredibly frustrating. I've got no problem going up against Draigowing or Psychic Choir Nids or Beastpack Shenanigans or whatever. I don't consider them terribly imaginative, but I don't have an issue playing against them or losing to them. I do, however, have a problem with the idea that there is ONE TRUE WAY to play WH40k, and that's by using net-approved lists specifically optimized to maximally exploit the asymmetric game mechanical advantage of a few poorly balanced units in a codex, or combination of those across a couple codexes.

QFT +1

 Peregrine wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

Except that's not what Ailaros asked, he asked whether it is a viable option, not how to use the non-viable option as well as possible. Seriously, don't try to white knight for him when he even posted to explicitly reject the "I still want tactics for a bad unit" argument and claim that the unit is a viable one that should be used on its own merits, not just to do something different.

Probably semantics. I find the question "is this viable?" to be the same as "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?". I also feel that there should be no requirement to genuflect and perform obeisance to the internet competitive list building crowd in acknowledgement of their judgement of a unit's total uselessness in order to have a discussion about how best to use it.

Veskrashen wrote:
I find the question "is this viable?" to be the same as "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?".

But that's not what it means. You're completely changing the meaning of the question. Compare:

Should I eat an apple?

vs.

What's the best way to cook an apple?

One asks whether you should do X, the other asks if, given that you're going to do X, what is the best way to do X. If someone asks you "is unit X a viable option" then it's a yes/no question, and "no" is a perfectly valid answer.

I also feel that there should be no requirement to genuflect and perform obeisance to the internet competitive list building crowd in acknowledgement of their judgement of a unit's total uselessness in order to have a discussion about how best to use it.

There isn't. But there is an obligation to be clear in asking for something if you want to have a specific discussion. If you ask "should I do X" when you want to talk about "what's the best way to do X" then it's entirely your fault if you get "don't do X" as an answer.

I don't consider the question "is X viable?" to be a "should I do X?" question, as I said; you do. Again, it's a semantic difference. I see "is X viable?" to mean "can it be used in an effective manner?". You seem to read "is X viable?" to mean "should I take unit X in a tourney / competitive / optimized list?" which is making the same semantic contortion you're insuating that I'm making.

Oh, and for the record, when someone comes back to say "by asking "is unit X viable?" I meant blah blah blah" you don't get to say "nuh uh!" and continue to seem like a reasonable individual.

Veskrashen wrote:
I see "is X viable?" to mean "can it be used in an effective manner?".

And what is the standard for "effective", if not "performs well in an optimized list"? Are we obligated to pretend that ineffective units are somehow "effective" because they're better than nothing?

Oh, and for the record, when someone comes back to say "by asking "is unit X viable?" I meant blah blah blah" you don't get to say "nuh uh!" and continue to seem like a reasonable individual.

Sure I do. Words have meanings, and if you use them in the wrong way it's entirely reasonable to point out that what you said and what you meant are two different things.

 Peregrine wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
I see "is X viable?" to mean "can it be used in an effective manner?".

And what is the standard for "effective", if not "performs well in an optimized list"? Are we obligated to pretend that ineffective units are somehow "effective" because they're better than nothing?

Oh, and for the record, when someone comes back to say "by asking "is unit X viable?" I meant blah blah blah" you don't get to say "nuh uh!" and continue to seem like a reasonable individual.

Sure I do. Words have meanings, and if you use them in the wrong way it's entirely reasonable to point out that what you said and what you meant are two different things.

Words definitely have meanings. You assume that the connotations you attach to them are shared by the other person using them, which isn't a good assumption to stick to when they start correcting your interpretation of the message they're sending. If they say "I mean X" then they mean X, regardless of what you understood their prior message to be.

As far as standard by which to measure effectiveness, I don't feel that "performs well in an optimized list" is a good standard to go by. Primarily because the phrases "performs well" and "in an optimized list" aren't really well defined ones to begin with, and the "optimized list" you're talking about changes the nature of the measurement significantly. Baron Sathonyx, for example, wasn't considered a "good unit" until people started running him with Invisible Fortuned Beastpacks. In that particular list, he's good. In other lists, not so much. You can't simply say "Take Baron Sathonyx as your HQ choice in a DE army or allied detachment" since doing so isn't going to be effective in all lists, not even all optimized lists. Raiderspam Warriors do better with the Duke, for instance, and you're probably better off with a cheap Archon in a lot of cases.

On the other hand, you can look at a unit like Baron Sathonyx and say, "ok, what can he do well, and what roles can he play well in an army?" Well, he's not all that great in CC, since he's only S3, doesn't have power weapons or poison weapons, isn't Fearless so he can (potentially) be swept if a unit he's attached to loses combat. He's not that great in shooting, since all he's got is a splinter pistol. He does give Hit and Run to a unit, and he's got a Shadowfield; he also gives Stealth. And he's Jump Infantry. Oh, and he gives you a better chance to get first turn. So realistically, he's not that good of an HQ to take, unless you've got a nice, heavy, fast moving melee unit you want to use a Shadowfield character to LOS tank with, or if you're dependent on going first in a game. In most other instances, he's probably not your best choice.

The only way you can make the blanket statement that the Baron is an effective unit is if you assume that any "optimized list" run by Eldar or Dark Eldar has a nice big melee unit you want to throw into someone's face. That's not a valid assumption to make in my opinion. The more correct response is that the Baron is an effective way to increase your chances of going first, and is an effective addition to a melee oriented army - particularly one with a melee oriented deathstar of some kind.

In that vein, you can look at something like Vespid, and say something like they're a fast moving unit that's not worried about moving through terrain, that has solid AP3 shooting at a reasonable range. Thus, in a Tau list that needs to reliably take out MEQ units in an opponent's backfield, the Vespid can be an effective choice. The reason you can say this is that a Fire Warrior, on average, will cause 1/9 wounds to a MEQ per turn outside of rapid fire range, while a Vespid will cause 1/3 wounds to a MEQ per turn. As a FW costs 9 points, and a Vespid costs 18, it takes 50% more points worth of FW to cause the same average MEQ wounds as a Vespid does. Thus, Vespid are a more effective anti-MEQ choice than FW outside of rapid fire range. This doesn't, by the way, invalidate the claim that Vespid are a poor choice overall - there's lots of other units in the Tau codex that are better than Vespid at taking out MEQ from 24" or further, and there's lot of solid choices that compete with Vespid for the FOC slots. Which often means that you *shouldn't* take Vespid. None of which makes them an ineffective anti-MEQ harassment unit.

Edit: To generalize my point a bit, by stating that it has to "perform well in an optimized list" you're making a lot of unstated assumptions about what a competitive list will contain, about what lists a competitive list will go up against, and about the scenarios a competitive list must do well at. The majority of "competitive lists" I've seen build around 1-2 mechanics and attempt to funnel every single ounce of the list to supporting those 1-2 mechanics. Psychic Choir lists look to maximize the amount of Biomancy rolls to buff up their MCs, with some consideration given to keeping troops on the board to hold an objective or two. Guard lists tend to maximize cheap artillery platforms and flyers, or they concentrate on flooding the board with high Leadership / Fearless / ATSKNF blobs of 30+ guardsmen. DEldar Beastpack lists look to get a nice, big, fat Invisible beast pack with all the Rending goodness into CC as fast as possible. Necron Flying Circus depends on flooding the board with cheap, effective flyers and beaming troops onto objectives late game. The existence of these lists does not imply or necessitate that they are the only valid lists from those codexes. Further, their existence does not mean that any list or unit you choose has to be able to roflstomp each and every one of the above in order to be considered competitive. A competitive list, however, should include effective ways to deal with all of those archetypal lists. This means that you need to be able to handle high Toughness FNP MCs, you need to be able to handle flyers in some way (flooding the board with bodies being a viable option), you need to be able to kill 150+ T3 5+ save troops over the course of a game, you need to be able to counter - in some way - Invisible, fast, hard melee troops.

The fact that Unit X may not be good at being one of those counters does not make it useless. If the rest of the list has a hole that Unit X can fill effectively, then it can be an effective unit in that list. That is the standard by which I feel things should be judged - can Unit X be effective in a particular role, such that the rest of your points can go to doing other things.

I agree with Veskreshen. Splitting hairs aside, regardless of the intended question, saying a unit is 'bad' is pretty close minded. There's a use and a reason for every unit or the resources wouldn't have been spent to design it.

When someone asks if a unit is viable, it's reasonable to assume they also want to know how it is most viable. Being purposefully obtuse and ignoring the intended question is, given the general level of intelligence here, is just trolling and ridiculous, and possibly the occasional example of ignorance.

A while back I posted a thread for advice on using Dreadnoughts. With a lack of 'they suck in 6th don't use them' comments, it was quite informative. Whether one believes they're 'bad' or not, it was obvious I wanted to know how to use them as effectively as possible and other than the occasional' long fangs do it better', people strove to answer the intended question.

I don't understand why people refuse to help so often by perpetrating good/bad unit mentality, and ignoring the obvious question. I understand some just like to argue, for the same of arguing, but there are plenty of other opportunities without turning nearly every request for advice into an off topic argument. That's all it is, pretending otherwise claiming misunderstanding is just a thin cover which is just a transparent insult to te intelligence of the person making the claim, that of the person asking for advice, and those willing to actually help. If someone wants to argue and stop another from getting quality advice, whatever, but call it what it is.

A glutton for punishment, I keep posting for such advise hoping beyond hope to get what I got with the Dread thread but it seems it's in vain.

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:
I agree with Veskreshen. Splitting hairs aside, regardless of the intended question, saying a unit is 'bad' is pretty close minded. There's a use and a reason for every unit or the resources wouldn't have been spent to design it.

That's simply not true. You assume that GW's designers are actually competent, when there is a wealth of evidence that suggests they are not. There are bad units. They are the units that cannot successfully accomplish tasks that they would be expected to perform. Often, a change in edition has this result.

Take Howling Banshees as an example. They're an assault unit, but they're T3 4+, with a smallish max unit size and no way to get into position to assault which prevents them from being shot to death. In 5th ed, they were marginal, because they could assault out of a wave serpent, provided it had not yet moved that turn. In 6th ed, they cannot even do that. They're currently a bad unit.

I know I'm not adding much to the discussion, that this is mainly a "QFT" post, and I apologise, but I'd just like to say I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feel that GW's designers aren't all that competent. I mean, I agree with Redbeard. It has always felt, to me, that GW's design philosophy is the same as what us video gamers would call "pay2win", the most despicable kind of game design in video game side of thing(See: Zynga, the myriad of terrible iOS/android games with IAP, etc)...

And to attempt to add some to the discussion: when someone calls an unit "bad", it's often not the result of them looking at the profile or the codex or analysing in vaccum, it's usually the result of actual field testing by several competent players of that codex, as well as critical analysis on discussion boards, which is especially the case for older codices. Example, DE's mandrakes, Kheradruakh.

That said, I do also prefer players who'd just field what they like rather than what the interweb told them to field.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:
I agree with Veskreshen. Splitting hairs aside, regardless of the intended question, saying a unit is 'bad' is pretty close minded. There's a use and a reason for every unit or the resources wouldn't have been spent to design it.

That's simply not true. You assume that GW's designers are actually competent, when there is a wealth of evidence that suggests they are not. There are bad units. They are the units that cannot successfully accomplish tasks that they would be expected to perform. Often, a change in edition has this result.

I'd agree and disagree here. You assume that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest GW's designers are incompetent. I'd say that statement bears examination, since you assume they're designing the rules to support the style of competitive, min-max tournament play we have here in the US. Since it's also been established that the GW designers didn't design the game with that in mind, I'd say you're making an unsupported statement there. I would also point out that your example of Howling Banshees as a bad unit is for a unit that's in a codex drafted for 4th edition WH40k, when none of the 5th edition or 6th edition rules were in place. It is hardly reasonable to state that the designers of 4th edition codex Howling Banshees are incompetent simply because they don't meet your min-max competitive efficiency standards two editions later.

Your example of Howling Banshees being a bad unit, however, is a good one to unpack. For approximately the cost of a standard Space Marine, you get a WS4 I5 model with a power weapon and pistol. Sure, T3 4+ means you're taking more wounds from small arms on average. And yes, the fact that Eldar lack an assault transport makes getting them into melee safely a far more difficult proposition. That said, does that automatically make them useless? Is 30 AP3 attacks on the charge of no value at all? Is the ability to model your power weapons to choice, giving you mauls and swords and axes and lances in any combination you choose completely pointless and not at all worth taking ever? Is the fact that your cheap Exarch can take an S5 AP3 melee weapon not worth considering? Is the fact that he can take a weapon that gives +2 attacks and straight up ignores armor saves altogether useless? Oh, and since they've got Banshee Masks, those girls strike at I10 the first round, regardless of any grenades or cover.

Are there challenges in using them? Absolutely. Are there probably better assault units in the Eldar codex, especially now that it's 2 editions out of date? Yeah, most likely. Are there options that are probably easier for most players to use well, or more survivable in more situations, or more flexible overall? Yup. Are they totally useless, completely unable to accomplish anything of value ever, and thus not worthy of consideration at all? That, I highly doubt.

Veskrashen wrote:

I'd agree and disagree here. You assume that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest GW's designers are incompetent. I'd say that statement bears examination, since you assume they're designing the rules to support the style of competitive, min-max tournament play we have here in the US. Since it's also been established that the GW designers didn't design the game with that in mind, I'd say you're making an unsupported statement there.

Good rules work for tournament and casual play equally well, as MtG has shown. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the disparity in power level between two units from the same codex. Even without the goal being to create a game suitable for tournament play, if your goal is to sell models, and one unit is comparatively much worse than another, you're not going to sell the worse model. Consider Mutilators, from the Chaos codex. Brand new model, dedicated assault unit as an elite choice in a codex full of dedicated assault units as elites (in an edition that really doesn't favour dedicated assault units). Probably the worst of these dedicated assault choices, and I've never seen anyone run one. Is that good design?

I would also point out that your example of Howling Banshees as a bad unit is for a unit that's in a codex drafted for 4th edition WH40k, when none of the 5th edition or 6th edition rules were in place. It is hardly reasonable to state that the designers of 4th edition codex Howling Banshees are incompetent simply because they don't meet your min-max competitive efficiency standards two editions later.

It has nothing to do with a efficiency standard. I have largely avoided talking about efficiency, because an inefficient unit can still get some things done. A bad unit really can't, or at least struggles to find situations to be useful in. Banshees are bad, indeed because of changes to the basic rules (which are still part of design), that have made it increasingly difficult to get any mileage out of them. In a vacuum, they're not a poorly priced unit, and yes, 30 AP3 attacks has some merit. How often do you think someone gets to make 30 attacks with them in 6th ed? And that's why they're bad. Not because they're inefficient, but because the rules have marginalized a unit with those stats. Getting the unit into combat is such a challenge that you can go several games before you accomplish it. But go ahead and keep running them if you want. (BTW - Wyches, from a much more recent codex, suffer from many of the same problems, although they can at least charge out of a transport, and be taken in much larger squads, allowing some to make it to combat, and even still you don't see them in many 6th ed lists either, do you.)

Baronyu wrote:
And to attempt to add some to the discussion: when someone calls an unit "bad", it's often not the result of them looking at the profile or the codex or analysing in vaccum, it's usually the result of actual field testing by several competent players of that codex, as well as critical analysis on discussion boards, which is especially the case for older codices. Example, DE's mandrakes, Kheradruakh.

Sure, there's some of that going around too. But again, a lot of that discussion is conducted with various unstated or otherwise implied assumptions. And I'm not saying that categorically there are no bad units at all. What I'm saying is that I find it highly unlikely that a unit is so unredeemably terribad that there is no possible efficient use for it at all. Even with Mandrakes, as universally loathed as they are. They are, for example, the only unit in the entire Dark Eldar codex with Infiltrate, and one of two non-HQ units with an invulnerable save. Between Fleet and Move Through Cover, they're better at making long charges against troops in cover than most units in the codex. Given Kheradruakh appears anywhere on the board when he arrives from reserve, as long as it's not within 1" of an enemy unit, he can easily get a pain token to those infiltrated Mandrakes. It's not clear to me if, after joining a unit after coming in from reserves, the unit he joins can still assault, but if so - between Infiltrate / Fleet / Move Through Cover - you can easily engineer a turn 2 charge with a 5++ / FNP unit with 3 attacks each. Easily enough to tarpit something fugly for a while, especially since the Decapitator can inflict ID.

Now, is it a good combo, a tournament winning combo, a combo that makes shelling out 185-300pts for? Especially when you can get Harlequins or Wracks or Grotesques or any number of other things instead? Yeah.... not so much. Can I see situations in which it could be used well? Sure. Can I see what the designers were probably going for with that unit, given their fluff and design? Yup. The only real drawback is that they're not cheap enough to make up for the fact that the rest of the DEldar army is so damn fast that being able to Infiltrate into a forward position isn't worth a whole lot. And given that Wyches have Drugs and get an Invul in CC where it counts, and can get pain tokens far easier from an attached Haemie for far cheaper, there's little reason to use Mandrakes to tarpit.

So, all that said... Mandrakes are generally a poor choice in a DEldar army, because the cost of making them good enough is too high, and there are other options that can achieve the same impact / serve in the same role better or more cheaply. There simply isn't a *need* for an infiltrating assault unit in a DE list. But, if for whatever reason an infiltrating tarpit assault unit is what you need - then Mandrakes would fit the bill.

Veskrashen wrote:
If they say "I mean X" then they mean X, regardless of what you understood their prior message to be.

Fine. Once they clarify that they meant X even though they said Y then the thread can change to discuss X. But that doesn't chance the fact that if you say Y you should expect a discussion about Y, or that it is completely unreasonable to expect people to read your mind and magically know that you really meant to say X.

As far as standard by which to measure effectiveness, I don't feel that "performs well in an optimized list" is a good standard to go by. Primarily because the phrases "performs well" and "in an optimized list" aren't really well defined ones to begin with, and the "optimized list" you're talking about changes the nature of the measurement significantly.

That's why you have to state a context for your list. The fact that there is no single perfect list doesn't change the fact that units can be evaluated based on how well they perform in a given optimized list, or that the relevant question in evaluating a unit is whether or not you would take it over the alternatives purely for its superior ability to win games.

That is the standard by which I feel things should be judged - can Unit X be effective in a particular role, such that the rest of your points can go to doing other things.

That's a terrible standard because it ignores the potential for there to be a unit Y that is better than unit X in that particular role.

Veskrashen wrote:
Are they totally useless, completely unable to accomplish anything of value ever, and thus not worthy of consideration at all?

Again, that's a terrible standard for evaluating a unit. Every single unit (AFAIK) in 40k can accomplish something of value, the question is whether it will accomplish more of value than the alternative units. A unit with a 1% chance to kill a vehicle is capable of accomplishing something of value, but that doesn't mean that you ever want to use it if you have an otherwise-identical unit that has a 90% chance of killing the same vehicle. Instead we discard the garbage units that are out-performed by the alternatives, and focus on the viable options that make an effective contribution for their points/FOC slots.

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:
When someone asks if a unit is viable, it's reasonable to assume they also want to know how it is most viable.

No it isn't reasonable. If someone asks "is this viable" the reasonable assumption is that they're asking if it's viable. For example, they might be considering buying one and asking to find out if it's worth the money, or if they should buy something else instead.

If that person actually wants to ask what the best way to use a unit is, with the assumption that the unit will be used no matter what, then they need to ask that question instead instead of blaming other people for their own failure to communicate.

 Redbeard wrote:
Good rules work for tournament and casual play equally well, as MtG has shown. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the disparity in power level between two units from the same codex. Even without the goal being to create a game suitable for tournament play, if your goal is to sell models, and one unit is comparatively much worse than another, you're not going to sell the worse model. Consider Mutilators, from the Chaos codex. Brand new model, dedicated assault unit as an elite choice in a codex full of dedicated assault units as elites (in an edition that really doesn't favour dedicated assault units). Probably the worst of these dedicated assault choices, and I've never seen anyone run one. Is that good design?

Again, I'd disagree that it's necessarily poor design that the rules have to work equally well in an extreme setting as in a more moderate setting. What I mean is that basically every system frays at the margins of it's design - once you start pushing the envelope on that, things break. To the best of my knowledge, MtG has been designed - if not from the beginning, then for as long as I can remember, and I was around in the beginning - for tournament play. And even there, they have to disallow certain decks or combinations of rules or whatever in order to ensure that the system that they designed doesn't break. If GW designed their system for casual, narrative play, then highly competitive push the boundaries tournament play is simply a use of the game that wasn't intended, tested, or allotted for by the designers of the game. The fact that so many things are broken or work poorly in that kind of environment isn't at all surprising - it wasn't designed to be played in that manner. Now, I will absolutely agree that you have every right to play it in that way, and I go to tourneys myself. But if the system was never designed to be played in that manner, you can't call the designer incompetent if it doesn't work well when played that way. As far as the Mutilators go, every single thing you said was absolutely valid - they're an elite choice dedicated assault unit in a codex full of dedicated assault units. And I can say with a straight face that if that unit is good at it's job, then it's not poor design. It's definitely not good design from a competitive list building standpoint, since there's obviously so many other units in the dex that can perform the same job as well, or have other advantages that make them worth taking. But as long as that unit isn't craptacular at what it was designed to do, then I can't say it's poor unit design. Bad codex design or less than optimal internal balance, both from a competitive tourney play standpoint, sure.

It has nothing to do with a efficiency standard. I have largely avoided talking about efficiency, because an inefficient unit can still get some things done. A bad unit really can't, or at least struggles to find situations to be useful in. Banshees are bad, indeed because of changes to the basic rules (which are still part of design), that have made it increasingly difficult to get any mileage out of them. In a vacuum, they're not a poorly priced unit, and yes, 30 AP3 attacks has some merit. How often do you think someone gets to make 30 attacks with them in 6th ed? And that's why they're bad. Not because they're inefficient, but because the rules have marginalized a unit with those stats. Getting the unit into combat is such a challenge that you can go several games before you accomplish it. But go ahead and keep running them if you want. (BTW - Wyches, from a much more recent codex, suffer from many of the same problems, although they can at least charge out of a transport, and be taken in much larger squads, allowing some to make it to combat, and even still you don't see them in many 6th ed lists either, do you.)

You'll notice that I agreed with most of your points regarding how difficult they are to use in 6th, and how difficult it would be to get the most out of them in 6th. I also stated that evaluating the design competency of 4th edition units using a 6th edition standard is flat out useless - the system has changed, and nothing works the way it used to. You're trying to evaluate the competency of a design in an environment it was never designed to be used in - namely, two versions of a game later, none of the rules of which anyone could have reasonably predicted with any accuracy back then. I absolutely, unequivocally agree that it is incredibly difficult to get the most out of a Banshee unit these days, and as a result most people are going to be frustrated trying to get them to perform to max potential in a tournament setting (where the dominant lists are primarily 5th edition codexes taking advantage of older units that now work more effectively in the new edition). As far as Wyches, yeah our local DE player still runs a lot of them, though generally as anti-armor units than anti-infantry assault units. My Mech Tau hate them with a passion.

Veskrashen wrote:
And even there, they have to disallow certain decks or combinations of rules or whatever in order to ensure that the system that they designed doesn't break.

You remember wrong. Card bans are very rare, and it's even rarer that more than one card from a "problem" deck will ever be banned. And it is never a deliberate policy, bans are an absolute last resort to fix the rare mistake that slips through balancing.

But if the system was never designed to be played in that manner, you can't call the designer incompetent if it doesn't work well when played that way.

Sure we can. A competent designer would have made a system that works for both competitive and casual play. Unfortunately GW is incompetent and designed a system that falls apart unless you never try too hard to win and are always willing to 4+ the frequent rule problems.

 Peregrine wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
If they say "I mean X" then they mean X, regardless of what you understood their prior message to be.

Fine. Once they clarify that they meant X even though they said Y then the thread can change to discuss X. But that doesn't chance the fact that if you say Y you should expect a discussion about Y, or that it is completely unreasonable to expect people to read your mind and magically know that you really meant to say X.

And again, assuming that I said Y in the first place, because of the connotations you attach to the words I say, doesn't make it so.

As far as standard by which to measure effectiveness, I don't feel that "performs well in an optimized list" is a good standard to go by. Primarily because the phrases "performs well" and "in an optimized list" aren't really well defined ones to begin with, and the "optimized list" you're talking about changes the nature of the measurement significantly.

That's why you have to state a context for your list. The fact that there is no single perfect list doesn't change the fact that units can be evaluated based on how well they perform in a given optimized list, or that the relevant question in evaluating a unit is whether or not you would take it over the alternatives purely for its superior ability to win games.

That is the standard by which I feel things should be judged - can Unit X be effective in a particular role, such that the rest of your points can go to doing other things.

That's a terrible standard because it ignores the potential for there to be a unit Y that is better than unit X in that particular role.

Actually, neither of your arguments are correct. You can in fact discuss a unit without the context of a list. In fact, in the absence of a list's context, the assumption that it is intend for use in a competitive tourney setting is in fact an erroneous assumption, because no such thing was stated or implied. Further, discussion of whether Unit X is good or bad at a particular role does not in fact ignore the fact that there might be another unit that is better at that particular role. Talking about whether FWs with EMPs are an effective anti-armor unit doesn't negate the fact that Deep Striking Crisis are generally better at it, which doesn't negate the fact that a Vendetta may be a better choice. However, by assuming that because Unit Y does that role better in some way, that Unit X is useless and should never be taken, ignores a whole host of other things - like any reason not to take Unit Y, for example. Which also, by the way, makes an assumption about the list in question - that allies are available, or that the FOC slots for Unit Y aren't already filled by something else, etc etc etc.

Veskrashen wrote:
Are they totally useless, completely unable to accomplish anything of value ever, and thus not worthy of consideration at all?

Again, that's a terrible standard for evaluating a unit. Every single unit (AFAIK) in 40k can accomplish something of value, the question is whether it will accomplish more of value than the alternative units. A unit with a 1% chance to kill a vehicle is capable of accomplishing something of value, but that doesn't mean that you ever want to use it if you have an otherwise-identical unit that has a 90% chance of killing the same vehicle. Instead we discard the garbage units that are out-performed by the alternatives, and focus on the viable options that make an effective contribution for their points/FOC slots.

Veskrashen wrote:
And again, assuming that I said Y in the first place, because of the connotations you attach to the words I say, doesn't make it so.

There is no connotation involved. "Is X viable" is a simple yes/no question, and "no" is a legitimate answer.

(Please note that "connotation" is not the same thing as "I expect you to know what I mean even though I don't say it".)

You can in fact discuss a unit without the context of a list.

Yes, and your point is? You were saying that "performs well" has no meaning, I corrected you based on the fact that there's always a context (whether implied or explicit) and discussion of performance in optimized lists already accounts for the fact that different units are better or worse in different optimized lists.

In fact, in the absence of a list's context, the assumption that it is intend for use in a competitive tourney setting is in fact an erroneous assumption, because no such thing was stated or implied.

You're right, we shouldn't assume a competitive tournament environment. Fortunately I never did, I've said from the beginning that we're talking about competitive games, not tournament games.

Further, discussion of whether Unit X is good or bad at a particular role does not in fact ignore the fact that there might be another unit that is better at that particular role.

That's not what I said. I said that your "can X be effective in a particular role" comment is a terrible standard because it ignores the potential existence of alternative options that are better in that role, not that discussion of a given unit ignores other units. You can evaluate how effective a unit is in a given role in isolation (through math alone), but you can't answer the question of whether it's good enough to go in a list until you consider the question of whether or not it is better than the alternatives.

There may well be, as again I have noted above, several valid reasons for NOT taking Unit Y. Such as Unit Z, which takes the same FOC slot as Unit Y, but is effective at doing something else that Unit Y and Unit X are not effective at doing.

That's why I said "otherwise identical". If unit X is effective, and unit Y is otherwise identical but more effective, unit X is garbage and should never be used. Obviously you'll never have two exactly identical units like that, but usually the overlap is sufficient that you can reject one of them as non-viable garbage even though it is capable of rolling dice and making a non-zero contribution.

The fact that YOU assume that everyone is asking about tournament viability does not, in fact, make that assumption true.

I never assumed anything about tournaments. Competitive =/= tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veskrashen wrote:
As an analogy, a competent designer can design a car that flies as well as it drives. That does not make Lambourghinis incompetently designed cars, simply because they're rather bad at flying.

That's a terrible analogy because building a car that can fly would take away from its primary role as a car. It will be slower, probably won't look as nice, etc. On the other hand, designing a game for competitive play doesn't take anything away from casual play. The only reason to throw out competitive play is that you're too lazy and/or incompetent to design a game that can handle it.

Peregrine, you assume that competitive necessitates an highly optimized and min-maxed list. Every single counter argument you advanced above is based on that assumption. My use of the word "tournament" is shorthand for any kind of play that necessitates a highly optimized, min-maxed list in order to have any chance of success. Which I feel is the basis of your arguments.

And again, "can X be effective at a role" does not in fact ignore alternatives. Saying "X sucks because Y is better at that role" does not in fact answer the question of "can X be effective at a role". Further, the inclusion of Unit X based on it's performance of a role is not at all dependent on whether Unit Y is better at it. It can be based on funds or model availability, it can be based on time before the next game, it can be based on points or FOC restrictions imposed by the rest of the list, it can be based on the use of different allies than the codex Unit Y is in. In short, the fact that Unit Y is better at a role than Unit X does not make Unit X not viable, it means that Unit Y is better at that role. That's why I believe it's best to actually lay out why - even though Unit Y is better at a particular role - you might want to take Unit X anyway.

If those units are "otherwise identical" then yes, you'd be right - one would be garbage and the other not. If both units were exactly the same, with the exact same capabilities, but one cost twice as much as the other with no additional advantages then yes, that's an absolutely fair statement to make. That is not the situation in just about any circumstance you care to name. Take, for example, Tau flyers. When the question was asked "which is the best Tau flyer?" your response was "they're not Vendettas or Helldrakes, so don't take them, they suck." Which is not comparing units that are otherwise identical. Taking a Vendetta means also taking an IG HQ and Troop choice. It means you're taking Lascannons, which are terrible against massed infantry. Instead, you simply listed any unit that was maximally efficient at any particular use of said flyer, and said "it sucks because this other unit is better at that role." There are 4 Tau flyers, and they're all Fast Attack choices. For "all other things to be equal" you'd have to be comparing it to the same role using Tau units in Fast Attack slots. That's not the analysis and comparison you make.

Veskrashen wrote:
Peregrine, you assume that competitive necessitates an highly optimized and min-maxed list.

That's what competition means. If you aren't optimizing your list then you're "competing" about as much as you'd be competing in a running race if you walked the whole distance.

Saying "X sucks because Y is better at that role" does not in fact answer the question of "can X be effective at a role".

Of course it does, because effectiveness is relative. If Y is much better than X, X is not effective.

In short, the fact that Unit Y is better at a role than Unit X does not make Unit X not viable, it means that Unit Y is better at that role.

No, but very few units are rejected purely because they are a bit worse at one specific thing. Usually the rejected units either don't have any meaningful advantages in other areas, or are so much worse at their primary role that no amount of secondary advantages can make up for that problem.

When the question was asked "which is the best Tau flyer?" your response was "they're not Vendettas or Helldrakes, so don't take them, they suck."

And what you've done here is remove the entire context for that statement. The point was not that they had to be literal Helldrake/Vendetta copies, it's that a viable flyer has to be that powerful when you're talking about a codex that doesn't need flyers for AA. If you aren't going to be bringing that kind of efficient firepower then you're better off sticking to ground units that do have it.

It is possible to optimize a list with suboptimal units in it. Taking "the best" units in your list does not make it an optimal list. That's the disconnect I'm seeing - that if a unit isn't "the best" it's not worth taking at all. Beast Packs are not "the best" DE melee unit, yet they are often included in "optimized" lists, because when combined with other stuff in the list they're really really good at what they do.

Yes, performance is relative. And yes, there's a good argument to be made for taking Unit Y over Unit X if it's more efficient or effective at it's chosen role. That doesn't mean it's an autotake, and it doesn't mean that you shouldn't explore the situations where it doesn't make sense to do that. Sitting back and saying "unit y is better" and assuming that any and all argument and discussion can then cease is intellectually lazy at best.

And you're right, I didn't fully contextualize your argument that Tau flyers have to at least be as powerful as a Vendetta or Helldrake to take in a Tau army, since Tau have other options for anti-air. What you assume, however, is that there is no reason to take a Tau flyer, since each of the roles they perform can be more efficiently done with other Tau units. You further assume that because you've made the assessment that there's no reason to take a Tau flyer, that there is no further reason to discuss the issue at all, and any other choice is suboptimal, and therefore uncompetitive.

That's where I disagree. Tau flyers - unlike Vendettas and Helldrakes - can be effective against a wider variety of targets from the same platform. Tau flyers are far better than Vendettas at anti-horde, far better than Helldrakes against light-medium armor or weaker side/rear armor. The fact that all the Tau flyer's weapons (aside from the bomb) are on turrets make it more manueverable than the Vendetta, and the fact that they've got 30"+ range makes them more flexible than a Helldrake. The fact that the bomber can theoretically engage 3 targets in a single move + shooting phase makes it far more flexible than a Vendetta or Helldrake. And all of that you ignore, gloss over, and dismiss. You argue that because it doesn't have lascannons, you shouldn't take it for anti-armor. You argue that because it doesn't have an AP3 flamer, you shouldn't use it against hordes. And thus, you should never take it at all. That's really really shallow analysis. Find me another 160pt platform in the Tau army that can be an effective anti-armor, anti-flyer, and anti-infantry platform in a single Fast Attack slot. Find me one in an allied codex I can use for 160pts total expenditure, and that doesn't preclude me from taking other cool stuff from an allied list to bolster other areas of my list. If you can do that, then I'll accept that you're right, and that there really really is no reason to take a Tau flyer. Then and only then will you have shown that all else being equal, the Tau flyers are unequivocally worse than the other options available, and the other options cause no additional restrictions to your list building.

Veskrashen wrote:
That's the disconnect I'm seeing - that if a unit isn't "the best" it's not worth taking at all.

Which is true. If a unit isn't the best in a given context then it's not worth taking at all. Likewise, if a unit is part of a completely optimized list then it IS the best.

Sitting back and saying "unit y is better" and assuming that any and all argument and discussion can then cease is intellectually lazy at best.

It isn't lazy because the discussion has already happened. This is 2013 not 1990, every unit is discussed to death before a new codex is even officially released, and within a few days everything has been analyzed and the obvious conclusions have been reached. You don't need to keep going over the same arguments again and again, you can just skip to the "X is not worth taking" conclusion until/unless someone provides an argument that X actually is worth taking.

The fact that the bomber can theoretically engage 3 targets in a single move + shooting phase makes it far more flexible than a Vendetta or Helldrake.

No it doesn't, because there's no plausible situation where you'd engage three targets. You drop the bomb on one target, and then you focus all of your guns on a second target.

You argue that because it doesn't have lascannons, you shouldn't take it for anti-armor.

No, I argue that because it sucks compared to other Tau options you shouldn't take it for anti-armor. Same for all of the other target types.

Find me another 160pt platform in the Tau army that can be an effective anti-armor, anti-flyer, and anti-infantry platform in a single Fast Attack slot.

I don't need to because the Tau bomber isn't effective against vehicles, flyers, or infantry. It's mediocre at AA (far, far worse than Broadsides/crisis suits), nearly worthless against vehicles, and marginal at best against any infantry with decent saves or the ability to spread out at maximum 2" coherency.

Ok. If you're stating that within days of a codex's release, all possible permutations have been explored and discussed and assessed, and the wisdom of the internet has anointed select units as the only ones that could ever be possibly taken in any list regardless of whatever else was in that list, and that because of this we already have all the answers to any question about any unit, then yes - further discussion is pointless. I call BS on the idea that that's happened.

And again, you miss the point. If there exists a single Tau option that can perform all the tasks a Razorshark or Sunshark can do as well or better, for less points, then yes - there's no reason to take it. My point is that these flyers are very flexible and can perform a variety of tasks well. You can indeed engage light armor effectively with a Tau flyer. You can indeed kill hordes with it. You can indeed kill other flyers with it. If you can name a single Tau unit that can do all of those things as well or better, and doesn't compete with other things in the same FOC slot that you need, then you'll have proven your point. Otherwise, it's still an open debate.

Veskrashen wrote:
Ok. If you're stating that within days of a codex's release, all possible permutations have been explored and discussed and assessed, and the wisdom of the internet has anointed select units as the only ones that could ever be possibly taken in any list regardless of whatever else was in that list, and that because of this we already have all the answers to any question about any unit, then yes - further discussion is pointless. I call BS on the idea that that's happened.

No, that's not what I said. I said that the OBVIOUS conclusions have been reached. For example, we knew that Tau flyers sucked before the was even legally available because it was obvious as soon as the first scans were posted.

My point is that these flyers are very flexible and can perform a variety of tasks well.

And the unfortunate truth is that they can't perform any tasks well. They're mediocre at best no matter what you're using them against.

You can indeed engage light armor effectively with a Tau flyer.

No you can't. If your bomber is in rapid fire range with both drones you get 1.16 penetrating hits (at only AP 3) against AV 11, and only 1.75 glances or better. So against even a basic Rhino the bomber has a very low chance of killing the target, and its effectiveness drops to almost nonexistent against anything tougher.

You can indeed kill hordes with it.

Within rapid fire range you kill about 3 models with the guns if the horde isn't in cover, and maybe another 3-5 if you can line up a good shot with the bomb (which is easier said than done). For 160+ points that's an absolute joke.

You can indeed kill other flyers with it.

Not any of the ones that matter. Against AV 11 it has limited effectiveness (especially since the AV 11 flyer that matters doesn't really care about most damage results) and against AV 12 (which is the most important) it's almost worthless.

If you can name a single Tau unit that can do all of those things as well or better, and doesn't compete with other things in the same FOC slot that you need, then you'll have proven your point.

Why do I need to provide a single unit? Why can't I do it the right way and bring specialists that handle 1-2 roles but do them very well? Why am I stuck with a generalist unit that can't do anything effectively?

 Peregrine wrote:
No, that's not what I said. I said that the OBVIOUS conclusions have been reached. For example, we knew that Tau flyers sucked before the was even legally available because it was obvious as soon as the first scans were posted.

It was obvious that it wasn't a Vendetta or a Helldrake, sure. Our opinions differ as to whether that means it sucks.

You can indeed engage light armor effectively with a Tau flyer.

No you can't. If your bomber is in rapid fire range with both drones you get 1.16 penetrating hits (at only AP 3) against AV 11, and only 1.75 glances or better. So against even a basic Rhino the bomber has a very low chance of killing the target, and its effectiveness drops to almost nonexistent against anything tougher.

Not sure how you came up with your numbers. With the bomber, your numbers are correct assuming the Networked ML doesn't hit, about 2.4 glances or better if it does. That also ignores the two seekers, which add another hit on average at S8. So yeah, I can fairly reliably get 2.6 glances or better against AV11. The numbers are slightly worse with the Razorshark. I'm happy with wrecking AV11 vehicles, making them explode is a bonus. Oh, and since - as I pointed out above - all the Tau flyers have turreted weapons, I don't really care what the front armor of a vehicle is. Glancing a Russ to death from the rear is just as easy as glancing out a Rhino.

Edit: To make the numbers comparable with the anti-flyer numbers below, a Sun Shark in Rapid Fire range, without NML support or Seekers, has a 20% chance to glance out a 3HP AV11 vehicle in one turn, with an 18% chance of exploding it in one turn. Getting 3 glances or better, without NML support but with Seekers, is a 52% chance of getting 2+ glances from the drones and TLMP, and a 55% chance of getting at least one glance from the seekers, which gives me about a 64% chance of glancing it out in one turn.

You can indeed kill hordes with it.

Within rapid fire range you kill about 3 models with the guns if the horde isn't in cover, and maybe another 3-5 if you can line up a good shot with the bomb (which is easier said than done). For 160+ points that's an absolute joke.

Getting 6-8 kills per turn isn't bad at all for a flyer that's "an absolute joke" at anti-horde. Pretty much as good as any unit relying on large blasts to do the job, quite frankly.

You can indeed kill other flyers with it.

Not any of the ones that matter. Against AV 11 it has limited effectiveness (especially since the AV 11 flyer that matters doesn't really care about most damage results) and against AV 12 (which is the most important) it's almost worthless.

As I noted above, I don't care about what the front AV of a flyer is, I'm not shooting it in the front with my Tau flyers. I'm shooting it in the nice, soft, squishy AV10 rear. You know, where TL S7 shots are just about as good as TL S9 shots are against frontal AV12. I get about a 56% chance to get 3 or more glances or better from a bomber against AV10 (with about a 33.6% chance to explode it), and about the same chance to explode AV12 with 3x TL BS3 Lascannons. The chance of a Vendetta glancing out another frontal AV12 flyer in a single turn of shooting is pretty minimal (about 12.5%). That math tells me that the Tau flyers are better at air to air than Vendettas are, since they have the same chance to outright destroy it via an explosion, and a far far better chance to just glance it to death in a single round. Note that this doesn't include the Seekers off the bomber, since you likely wouldn't get shots off with them against rear armor on flyers.

If you can name a single Tau unit that can do all of those things as well or better, and doesn't compete with other things in the same FOC slot that you need, then you'll have proven your point.

Why do I need to provide a single unit? Why can't I do it the right way and bring specialists that handle 1-2 roles but do them very well? Why am I stuck with a generalist unit that can't do anything effectively?

Because my argument is, as I've already said, that this unit can do several things well in a single FOC slot at a reasonable price. I'm not arguing that it's better at any role than a specialist unit. If your argument is that any unit is useless if it's not maximally specialized to perform at a single role, then that's a different argument than you've previously been advancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Out of curiosity, what are your Best Tau Units for anti-air, taking out AV10/11 vehicles, and for taking out hordes? The ones that would be replacing the Sun Shark / Razorshark in a competitive list?

Veskrashen wrote:
With the bomber, your numbers are correct assuming the Networked ML doesn't hit, about 2.4 glances or better if it does.

You're right. I also ignored the fact that the drones are only BS 1, so it's not a very significant improvement if you include the 50% chance of a markerlight hit.

That also ignores the two seekers, which add another hit on average at S8.

The seekers are one-shot weapons, and only have a 45* arc directly in front of the flyer, which means you can either drop a bomb and/or fly past a target to shoot it in the back, or you can shoot at front/side armor but get your missiles.

Of course, if I'm shooting Rhinos, I'm going after their AV10 sides and rear, not their AV11 front - which increases the odds I'll glance it out.

Rhinos are AV 11 on the side.

Oh, and since - as I pointed out above - all the Tau flyers have turreted weapons, I don't really care what the front armor of a vehicle is.

So you're ignoring the limits on flyer movement? Because if you aren't even with turret guns you aren't guaranteed to get rear armor.

Getting 6-8 kills per turn isn't bad at all for a flyer that's "an absolute joke" at anti-horde. Pretty much as good as any unit relying on large blasts to do the job, quite frankly.

It's only 6-8 IF you can drop the bomb, and that's easier said than done. If you can't set up a good bombing run, or have to fly off the table next turn because you bombed something, your anti-horde effectiveness drops significantly. So you have a mediocre unit that requires the right circumstances just to be mediocre instead of awful. I'm not impressed.

I'm shooting it in the nice, soft, squishy AV10 rear.

Only if you ignore the flyer movement rules.

If your argument is that any unit is useless if it's not maximally specialized to perform at a single role, then that's a different argument than you've previously been advancing.

That's not my argument, and the Tau flyers are FAR from "maximally specialized". They're mediocre at best at any of their individual roles.

Out of curiosity, what are your Best Tau Units for anti-air, taking out AV10/11 vehicles, and for taking out hordes?

Dual missile pod crisis suits or rail rifle Broadsides with velocity trackers for anti-vehicle/AA, Riptides, fire warriors, and dual missile pod crisis suits for hordes.

I've edited my post for some better probabilities, which addresses your seekers vs no seekers issue. Drones are BS2, not BS1. And no, I don't have to ignore flyer movement rules to get rear armor shots on stuff, and no, I don't have to fly off the board after a successful bombing run. You are again making all kinds of totally unsupported and unreasonable assumptions.

As for your selected units:
You can run 2 Dual MP Crisis with VTs, or 2 Railsides with VTs for the same cost as a Sun Shark. The Crisis against frontal AV12 flyers gives you a 13.5% chance to glance it out in 1 turn, with a dismal chance to explode it. If you're talking TLMP with VTs instead, you can field 3, with a 16.9% chance to glance out frontal AV12 flyers. You can similarly run 2 Railsides, for about a 23.4% chance to explode it in one turn. You will note that all of those numbers are significantly worse than a Sun Shark without Seekers against rear AV10. If you stipulate TL Plasma Rifles on the Railsides within Rapid Fire range, you get about a 60% chance to glance out frontal AV12 in one turn. That's the only case where any of the three units you named does better than the bomber against rear AV10.

Against AV11, Dual MP Crisis have a 32% chance to glance it out, 19.6% chance to explode. 3 TLMP Crisis gives 40.4% and 22.5% respectively. Railsides get a 34% chance to explode, and 91% chance to glance it out. Railsides are the clear winner here, with bombers second and Crisis third.

Against hordes, things get more interesting. Riptide loadouts have a lot to do with it, but if you assume 3-5 dead from a large blast template, you're likely getting 3 from the SMS, so that puts you back at 6-8 kills for a higher price than the Sun Shark. 2 Dual MP Crisis can't kill more than 8 hordes, since they can't fire more than 8 shots total, so at best they're tied - with more like 4 kills on average. 18 FWs is a better choice - outside of rapid fire range, though, and you're looking at only 7.5 kills on average - again, what you see from a Riptide or Sun Shark bomber.

So how, again, does the bomber suck so bad when your optimal units are either worse or not significantly better?

Veskrashen wrote:
Drones are BS2, not BS1.

They're passengers moving at cruising speed. BS 1.

And no, I don't have to ignore flyer movement rules to get rear armor shots on stuff

I said you have to ignore flyer movement rules to guarantee rear armor. Obviously you can get rear armor sometimes, but you can't just assume that you're always shooting at AV 10.

I don't have to fly off the board after a successful bombing run.

Not always, but often. Once you play a few games with bombs you'll realize that using them effectively often means flying off the table next turn or leaving your flyer in a position where it has nothing appealing to shoot. There's a reason my IG flyers no longer carry bombs.

You will note that all of those numbers are significantly worse than a Sun Shark without Seekers against rear AV10.

Now do the numbers for the bomber against AV 12 since you can't guarantee rear armor.

Against hordes, things get more interesting. Riptide loadouts have a lot to do with it, but if you assume 3-5 dead from a large blast template, you're likely getting 3 from the SMS, so that puts you back at 6-8 kills for a higher price than the Sun Shark.

But more consistent kills, since it doesn't depend on setting up an effective bombing run. And, unlike the flyers, it can shoot starting on turn 1 instead of turn 2-3 (and often turn 3-4 for the bomb). The same is true for the other anti-horde options,

So how, again, does the bomber suck so bad when your optimal units are either worse or not significantly better?

Because you're making unrealistic assumptions that favor the bomber.

You're assuming that I'm flying on the board and engaging rear armor the same turn; that's not something I'm assuming at all. You're also assuming that there will be nothing on the board I can get rear armor shots on during the first turn my flyer is on the board, which I would dispute as flyers come on during turns 2/3 on average.

You're right that the ground-based options can engage from Turn 1 onwards. That's also irrelevant. We've been comparing how many kills per turn various units get; total kills per game is obviously determined by how many turns that unit survives to dish out damage. Ground units exposed to fire from Turn 1 onwards, especially those tasty points-efficient Fire Warriors, tend to start taking losses a lot earlier and become combat ineffective a lot earlier than flyers do. You'd need to lay out your assumptions as to how long each unit would last and why in order to get a better idea of total kills per game.

Stats against frontal AV12: Using both seekers and assuming no NML support, I get a 71% chance to glance frontal AV12 out in 1 turn, with about an 18.5% chance to explode it. Which again beats both Crisis teams and the Railsides with TL Plasma Rifles inside of Rapid Fire range.

I find the assumption that a competitive player would be totally unable to get a shot against AV10 rear armor without having to move more than 18" per game. I don't find the assumption that I'd be able to get a bombing run in unreasonable either. Of course, I could simply choose to take a Razorshark instead, and the majority of my movement, range and positioning problems are solved for a slight decrease in accuracy. Of course, I'll also be throwing S8 AP4 pieplates around rather than S5 AP5 bombs, so... there's that to consider.

Again, show me the math where your optimal units are so much more amazingly better than a bomber or fighter that there is no reason ever to take them. Show me the empirical evidence that they'll never be able to use their speed and the advantage of turreted weapons to get rear armor shots, Show me how your ground based solutions can survive longer than my flyers against an optimized competitive list, such that having them on the board turn 1 gives them an overwhelming advantage that can't be matched.

Or are you just going to continue to throw around 1 liners with no evidence to support your arguments and no math to back up your assumptions?

Veskrashen wrote:
You're assuming that I'm flying on the board and engaging rear armor the same turn; that's not something I'm assuming at all.

Ok, so you delay even more. How exactly are we supposed to be impressed by an anti-vehicle unit that can't engage vehicles effectively until turn 3-4 (at which point those Rhinos have already done their job)?

You're right that the ground-based options can engage from Turn 1 onwards. That's also irrelevant.

And this is what I mean about making favorable assumptions. You're looking at the bomber's performance in a single turn under ideal conditions instead of looking at the big picture.

Stats against frontal AV12: Using both seekers and assuming no NML support, I get a 71% chance to glance frontal AV12 out in 1 turn, with about an 18.5% chance to explode it.

Please post the detailed math behind the 71% number.

(And don't forget that your drones are only BS 1.)

Again, show me the math where your optimal units are so much more amazingly better than a bomber or fighter that there is no reason ever to take them.

A unit doesn't have to be amazingly better for there to be no reason to take the alternative.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Competitive lists get more attention because they're really the only ones that merit discussion.

I don't need feedback to help me build a friendly list. I pick the units I like, throw them together and have fun.

If I'm preparing for a tournament, I'm going to get as much input as possible. I'll talk to people, ask for feedback on my list, play practice games, research and all that jazz.

When I'm going out to game, I just bring 2 lists: competitive and friendly. I'll ask my opponent what sort of game he's looking for and pick the appropriate list. Boom, done.

This guy answered the question perfectly.

Actually, he didn't, because like all advocates of "competitive discussion only", he's focused exclusively on the list, and totally ignores the actual frigging game. Same as the guy up above who insists that "non-competitive" means "bad".

I don't build two types of lists and condescend to my opponent by offering to take a list which is "going easy" from my perspective, I build the list I want to build based on models and fluff, and then I try to devise interesting and effective tactics for the tabletop.

Frankly, I think it's quite hilarious how many competitive types are coming into this thread and claiming what awesome generals they are when most of them respond to a unit being less-than-optimal by simply not taking it, instead relying on spamming the least-balanced units they can find in their chosen 'dex.

I feel as though I need to chime in here in support of both what Yodrim and Veskrashen (before the tangent into Tau flyers) are getting at. If all the competitive types had their way, Warhammer and 40k would be a very boring game. I've read and seen enough games that a tactful armchair general can use "no-optimal" units to great effectiveness despite what those like Peregrine, Chumbalaya or The Captain would make you believe.

I may not be the best player but using the most optimal units can often lead to a very stagnant game and does not always bring the assured victory. As a guard player I have my fair share of flyers, but I had used them when they were just skimmers in what would have been seen as sub-optimal becasue I wasn't playing spam chimera mech lists, but hybrd-foot and fast skimmer list. Honestly I got to say that the competitive doesn't automatically mean you can only take these select units from your codex and play. But thats just my two cents.

Fist I want to say:
Thanks Peregrine and Veskrashen for completely derailing my thread that I was enjoying seeing everyone’s thoughts on this subject.
I have to say at least Veskrashen seems to get it.
Peregrine, you seem to se everything in Yes and No

So let me ask the Question in very simple Terms one more

So Does Every List Have To Be “Competitive”?
O Yes
O No

Is It Ok To Take “Sub-Par” Units From Time To Time?
O Yes
O No

Now can we can we move on?

Thanks Peregrine and Veskrashen for completely derailing my thread that I was enjoying seeing everyone’s thoughts on this subject.
I have to say at least Veskrashen seems to get it.
Peregrine, you seem to se everything in Yes and No

Wouldn't be the first time, he has a rather..abrasive personality.

Anyone who plays this game in cut-throat tournaments and actually takes it seriously is a fool. This game is a collection of random crap that some donkey-cave like Ward thought was "cool" and/or driven by GW's need to sell plastic.

If you are serious about competition, you should play a game with a tighter ruleset that actually rewards competence.

I'm lucky that no one in my group plays like this.

We basically just take whatever we like, and make a list out of it. I have a friend who themes heavily, often to the detriment of his army (his Dark Eldar is mostly Wyches in Raiders, Bloodbrides with a Succubus in a Venom, and Scourges and Hellions). He just likes playing a Wych army.

With my Tyranids, I basically find the models I think are badass, and use them. Hence why I use Warriors, Hormagaunts and Carnifexes. My brother makes themed lists as well, again, often to his detriment, and another friend just, like me, puts together a bunch of badass models.

We've got one friend who tries to make competitive lists, but generally just ends up making lists more mediocre than most netlists and also plays them terribly.

What we end up with is a very beer and pretzels environment. No one cares if they win or lose (except the wannabe competitive player), we just have fun games of 40k while we catch up after not seeing each other for a few weeks/months.

For Anpu, the correct answer is:

"It depends..."

For me, it's all about setting and opponent. I have been playing wargames for 2.5 years. I started in an environment that was you either pushed their crap in or they pushed yours in. Period. Lists were always competitive, discussions were competitive and we were out for blood. And then we went out for Mexican afterwards. So it's both a game, a mind clash, and a good time.

I then moved to my current area and proceeded to walk through about 4~5 tournaments as the first place person. I steam rolled the meta. (Wolves, 5E, who knew, right?! [/sarcasm]) So I paired back my attitude and list building for awhile and then 6E hit and everything changed and everyone sucked again. I haven't been the same since and got WRECKED at Feast of Blades invitational. But hey, I still won one of the painting competitions (actually two...). So I found my new outlet in competition within the hobby side and I have toned down... a bit.

If I play with new players or "casuals," I'll fool around with lists. If I know who I want to play against is bringing the heat, I'm going to bring the dirtiest thing I can think of at that time. We pair off duke it, blood is spilled, tears are shed... and then we go on with w/e as normal. (I just mad at bad dice rolls and not players ) Even a good general can still perform outstandingly with a "bad list" knowing how to compensate for weaknesses of the units given.

A truly competitive scene will have a constantly changing meta that isn't all netlists. Proxies will happen, things will be verified, and maybe someone rolls in and stomps everyone. All the lists adapt and the game stays fun, competitive, and we all have a good time. Some guy is TROUNCING people with a Tyranids Psychic Choir list. I bring out a harder Wolves or Crons list to pair off. Game's more balanced. I don't blame him for bringing the psychic choir list. Maybe those are the models he enjoys. Maybe he realizes that's about the only good build that codex has. I just take it case by case and enjoy all the parts of the hobby.

Personality type also plays a large role in how these games are perceived. There is not right or wrong; just poor situations brought upon by a lack of proper, gentlemanly (or ladylike) discourse prior to dice off.

Oh, and as for actual lists, I only buy the better models because I have limited funds to spend on plastic dudes, but want multiple armies instead of one massive army out of one dex. I'm going to invest in models that I both like visually and are competitively solid (hopefully both). I could see wrecking house with a good IG army, but I really don't want to paint IG Maybe a DKK army some day, but meh?

I'm rambling, sorry folks, TL;DR: Everyone has a different perception of fun based on how they were introduced to this hobby or why the started it. Personality also plays a significant portion. At the end of the day, no one has a bad time when we be grown ups and vocalize our intent prior to playing a game. As always, communication is the key to success!

 Omegus wrote:
Anyone who plays this game in cut-throat tournaments and actually takes it seriously is a fool.

Seems a bit rude.

But true. This game is not made for that kind of setting, hence the slew of arbitrary house rules at every tournament. It's really not that serious.

 Omegus wrote:
But true. This game is not made for that kind of setting, hence the slew of arbitrary house rules at every tournament. It's really not that serious.

The game is made to be compatible with competition, and "for fun" games.

Hence the inclusion of book-missions, rules for scoring units, victory conditions, etc.

If the game wasn't made for competition, the mission section of the rulebook would just say "Make stuff up and have fun with it."

Then they failed. But if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit they were never really trying.

 Anpu42 wrote:
So let me ask the Question in very simple Terms one more

But that's not the question you're asking. Obviously nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to only play with the most competitive lists and never even consider using anything else. What I disagree with is your attitude that playing non-competitive lists is in any way a superior way of playing the game, and your assumption that competitive-only players need to justify their preferences to you. Feel free to play with whatever units you want, just don't insist that you're somehow better than anyone because of that choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So let me ask the Question in very simple Terms one more

But that's not the question you're asking. Obviously nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to only play with the most competitive lists and never even consider using anything else. What I disagree with is your attitude that playing non-competitive lists is in any way a superior way of playing the game, and your assumption that competitive-only players need to justify their preferences to you. Feel free to play with whatever units you want, just don't insist that you're somehow better than anyone because of that choice.

they probably feel superior because their sense of selfworth isnt linked to winning a toy soldiers game with bad unbalanced rules.

they might also feel superior because they get to buy, paint and enjoy models that they actually like instead of spamming dumblooking flying croissants or whatever it is that the competitive crowd does

good stuff will just get nerfed into oblivion by GW later anyway when they decide to switch what the "winning" thing is so that they can sell more models.

kb305 wrote:

they probably feel superior because their sense of selfworth isnt linked to winning a toy soldiers game with bad unbalanced rules.

they might also feel superior because they get to buy, paint and enjoy models that they actually like instead of spamming dumblooking flying croissants or whatever it is that the competitive crowd does

good stuff will just get nerfed into oblivion by GW later anyway when they decide to switch what the "winning" thing is so that they can sell more models.

The tone of your post sounds overly harsh. I came from a competitive setting and I enjoy the game competitively. Your post, as written, feels to belittle my enjoyment of having a difficult match between two individuals with hard lists. Are the rules simply unbalanced because the units you like aren't "ZOMG, SO OP?!"

What if a player absolutely loves the Necron Nightscythe/Doomscythe model and takes a fistful of them? Are they now suddenly an awful person ripe for degradation and berating comments because they wanted a Necron Air Force?

And the final state is always true, new stuff comes out and it's good. Some new stuff comes out and it's bad (see most of the DA new units). I think you're overly taking what you enjoy from this hobby and implying it's the correct way. If someone enjoys being tournament capable, buys a new army every 6~18 months and attends the Grand Tournaments, and that's what they enjoy, what's it to you? The competitive players probably buy far more models than the non-competitive to stay in top form. Other hobby focused people I know just buy ALL the kits to have complete armies.

I think you should reign in the internet anger, unless I'm completely missing your tone and intent.

 Omegus wrote:
Anyone who plays this game in cut-throat tournaments and actually takes it seriously is a fool.

People think competitive players are the gak-heads of this game, but I think it's the fluff heads who complain that their all Ogryn Army can't compete. I agree with Peregrine. It's not the question that's the problem, it's the attitude. At least competitive players actually use the rules rather than complain about them incessantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kb305 wrote:
they probably feel superior because their sense of selfworth isnt linked to winning a toy soldiers game with bad unbalanced rules.

What an angry and incorrect assumption that is. Just because I enjoy a good contest between hard as nails armies doesn't mean I derive my self-worth from the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Feel free to play with whatever units you want, just don't insist that you're somehow better than anyone because of that choice.

Exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
The tone of your post sounds overly harsh. I came from a competitive setting and I enjoy the game competitively. Your post, as written, feels to belittle my enjoyment of having a difficult match between two individuals with hard lists. Are the rules simply unbalanced because the units you like aren't "ZOMG, SO OP?!"

Exalted.

You know what's funny? I've never once met a competitive player that has complained about people being too fluffy, yet the competitive-types are always the ones that get labeled as jerks, etc. The only player's i've seen that have been outright dismissive of others have been the "fluffier" players. It's a bit ironic, I think, that the players who are supposedly in it for the "fun" are the ones I most often see complaining or ostracizing others.

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with. Why is it that you casual folks care so much about what us competitive folks play?

LValx wrote:
You know what's funny? I've never once met a competitive player that has complained about people being too fluffy, yet the competitive-types are always the ones that get labeled as jerks, etc. The only player's i've seen that have been outright dismissive of others have been the "fluffier" players. It's a bit ironic, I think, that the players who are supposedly in it for the "fun" are the ones I most often see complaining or ostracizing others.

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with. Why is it that you casual folks care so much about what us competitive folks play?

Preach it, brother. Preach it.

LValx wrote:

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with.

Could they?

 Crimson wrote:

LValx wrote:

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with.

Could they?

LValx wrote:


Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with. Why is it that you casual folks care so much about what us competitive folks play?

yeah and isn't it funny how all fluff players say they win and beat tournament lists all the time and dont realy have problems wining with their own fluff lists. they say they dont care about wining , so what is the problem with them losing ? they say they win anyway , no matter what their opponent bring .
To be honest I don't know what is their problem . Maybe they think people with good lists dont have fun playing them and they want to save us or force us to play the way they want .

quote=Makumba 523178 5556541 null]

LValx wrote:


Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with. Why is it that you casual folks care so much about what us competitive folks play?

yeah and isn't it funny how all fluff players say they win and beat tournament lists all the time and dont realy have problems wining with their own fluff lists. they say they dont care about wining , so what is the problem with them losing ? they say they win anyway , no matter what their opponent bring .
To be honest I don't know what is their problem . Maybe they think people with good lists dont have fun playing them and they want to save us or force us to play the way they want .

I just play 40k when I feel like rolling dice, having random gak happen, and getting wasted. I save the competitive mindset for real games like Warmachine.

I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

Sure the fluffy players might complain about losing once in a while, but at least they are fun to play with!

I don't mind playing a non-optimised list against a fully optimised one. I see it as;
a) A challenge. There's nothing better than taking what's considered a sub-par list and holding your own/giving a tough-as-nails fight to a so-called top tier list.

b) I've sunk god knows how much $$$ into my army already. Not to mention the time and effort to build/convert & paint it. I'll be damned if I let some hype like net-listing stop me from at least looking good while I get creamed!

c) My army is mono-Tzeentch Daemons. I don't ever actually lose! Everything that happened simply went 100% according to plan!
(okay, that's just my excuse for my abysmal dice rolling... I mean, I do routinely fail like 70% or more of my 3+ saves, and only pass about 50% of my Ld10 psychic tests. I gave-up o nthe idea of winning a long time ago - Tzeentch simply likes his favorite jokes apparently)


Now what I can't stand and hate more than anything, are people who plonk down army lists that play at you, instead of playing with you.

For example, the old Derp Quake shinanigans whereby a GK could very effectively prevent my Daemons from ever hitting the table.
Or the donkeycave who knows you have limited anti-air and thus brings out their Flying French Bakery to gain an added advantage over an already non-optimised list.
Or by the same token, players who field highly cut-throat lists, but then use very cut-throat tactics in what's supposed to be a casual, (ie: non-tournament), game.

Why bother playing the game at all in situations like that? You know damn well for example that your 1 Quad-gun + 1 Dev unit w/Flak Missiles can't stop 6-8 'Cron flyers. Or why bother continuing when you're playing a more casual Assault Marine based list and the IG player just castles up in the back corner, AFTER setting up the terrain to their complete advantage and then shells you with 3 Manticores?

It's pointless stupidity and crap like that IMHO has no place outside of Tournaments, unless you and your opponent have agreed to a no-holds-bar competitive game.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

Hm, worded that wrong.

Nearly half of the major competitive/tournament type players that were around here were pretty much WAAC TFG's when it came to playing, and it pretty much ruined my enjoyment of the game for a while. I haven't gone back to the stores in a long time though, maybe they've hopefully cooled down.

It pretty much soured my view on those who just want to win without actually enjoying the game itself.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

Exactly

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

Hm, worded that wrong.

Nearly half of the major competitive/tournament type players that were around here were pretty much WAAC TFG's when it came to playing, and it pretty much ruined my enjoyment of the game for a while. I haven't gone back to the stores in a long time though, maybe they've hopefully cooled down.

It pretty much soured my view on those who just want to win without actually enjoying the game itself.

But what if they (we) enjoy the game itself by using it as a platform for some social competition?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

Sure the fluffy players might complain about losing once in a while, but at least they are fun to play with!

because the fluff player with his bad army that starts rolling his eyes after you put your second unit on the table and moaning how broken/OP/WAAC your sob are is not TFG.

Makumba wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

Sure the fluffy players might complain about losing once in a while, but at least they are fun to play with!

because the fluff player with his bad army that starts rolling his eyes after you put your second unit on the table and moaning how broken/OP/WAAC your sob are is not TFG.

I've clarified what I meant a few posts ago. I mainly had those within my local area.

But what if they (we) enjoy the game itself by using it as a platform for some social competition?

Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

The thing is, non-competitive players don't really ever encounter it, but fluff players do this too.

They'll throw fits when they lose, complain and whine about your list, and challenge you to rematches with tailored lists just to get even because they think you're "too cheesy".

WAAC and TFG has nothing to do with being competitive/fluffy.

Both groups have their TFG's, it's just that usually if you're in Group A, you only ever encounter the TFG's from group B, and vice versa. This leads to group A thinking all TFG's are in group B, and again, Vice versa.

-TheCaptain

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

The thing is, non-competitive players don't really ever encounter it, but fluff players do this too.

They'll throw fits when they lose, complain and whine about your list, and challenge you to rematches with tailored lists just to get even because they think you're "too cheesy".

WAAC and TFG has nothing to do with being competitive/fluffy.

Both groups have their TFG's, it's just that usually if you're in Group A, you only ever encounter the TFG's from group B, and vice versa. This leads to group A thinking all TFG's are in group B, and again, Vice versa.

-TheCaptain

I know, but it's hard to separate them after a long time of dealing with specific players in that category. Kinda like a first thought response when I had gotten used to it over that long period of time, gotta break that habit.

Course I'm a fluffy player, but generally in so far as it's competitive enough, the only time I really get annoyed is when the codex can't accurately allow for it to be done because of it being bad overall. (Like trying to run Thousand Sons for example in any meaningful way. ). I mostly get annoyed because I know if they actually gave meaningful errata they could make them useful, and allow for a codex to become balanced and useful to all who use them.

Course I have a few comp players as friends now, one of which runs necrons and has never yet lost, but we always have fun and he's pretty cool about enjoying the game rather then just the win.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

The thing is, non-competitive players don't really ever encounter it, but fluff players do this too.

They'll throw fits when they lose, complain and whine about your list, and challenge you to rematches with tailored lists just to get even because they think you're "too cheesy".

WAAC and TFG has nothing to do with being competitive/fluffy.

Both groups have their TFG's, it's just that usually if you're in Group A, you only ever encounter the TFG's from group B, and vice versa. This leads to group A thinking all TFG's are in group B, and again, Vice versa.

-TheCaptain

Have an exalt my good sir.

To be blunt- in my humble experience, most club based enviroments tend to have a competitive streak, whch results in most people developing lists that can 'compete'

What is beginning to become an annoyance here, in having branched out into other systems, and playing in a warmahordes journeyman league. Is how silly may of these arguments are, and how on the interwebs such a vast gulf exists between the two camps yet most of the 40k players i have met barring one (who seems to deny the actual reality of club gaming...), seem to develop lists to some that might seem 'semi-competitive' yet the folks like using said lists...

I always expect my opponent to give it his(or her...) best shot, and for that they earn my gratitude and going anywhere new i would expect the same and prepare accordingly.

or just play warmahordes instead where everyone knows that its competitive

 Krellnus wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Awesome Stuff
-TheCaptain

Have an exalt my good sir.

Have two.

I prefer to bring a hard list so that I don't have an easy excuse when I lose.

I think it's harder to determine if it's a fair fight if both guys are using non-optimized lists because they aren't trying their best to win. If one guy loses, he could just say "oh, your list was harder than mine. I intentionally made my list weaker than you intentionally made yours."

I swear some guys make bad lists on purpose just so they can complain about the other person/GW/balance/the world.

I also prefer to play other people that try to win, (although maybe not at all cost?). I have fun when I play regardless of how good or bad it goes because I just like my army that much. If we are doing a campaign, I always try to challenge the guys with the best records.

I think we are getting off track once more.

The original question reworded a little bit: Why do you Need to Always Play a Competitive List in every game you play or is it ok to Sometimes pull out a list with non-completive units?

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think we are getting off track once more.

The original question reworded a little bit: Why do you Need to Always Play a Competitive List in every game you play or is it ok to Sometimes pull out a list with non-completive units?

Depends on the opponent, meta, and opponent's request.

If I'm playing against a good, competitive opponent, you bet I'm playing a competitive list.

If I'm playing in a competitive meta, you bet I'm playing a competitive list, and assuming my opponent is doing the same.

However, if I'm playing against a bad or fluffy or new player, I'll play a non-competitive list. If I'm playing a narrative campaign or in a fluffy/non-comp meta, I'll play a non-competitive list. if I'm in a competitive meta, or playing against a good or competitive opponent, but they say "hey, lets play fluffy lists. Or hey, I'm trying out a fun list", I'll use a non-competitive list.

But non-competitive players shouldn't automatically expect non-competitive lists from other players. especially against competitive players, or in competitive metas.

It never hurts to let your opponent know what you want out of the game you're about to play.

-TheCaptain

Yes? No? I mean, generally I try to make the most competitive army I can, given the realities of my situation. For example, when I'm at home, I play Mech IG. It's huge. It takes up two Battlefoam 720s. It cost me an arm and a leg, but I do enjoy playing it, it's painted fairly well, it follows a theme, and it's what I play if I want to win.

I often travel for work, so I wanted a very low model count army that I could transport via airplane in carry-on. I went with a 27-model Deathwing army for this. It's as competitive as I could make a Deathwing army, but it's definitely not the best army you could make using Codex: Dark Angels. Half of it is also Dark Vengeance terminators, so the total cost of the army was ~$200. It's not competitive at all though and, though it was fun to paint, I would never bring it to a paid tournament.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Now Back to my Point:
In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

Why do you complain about not using their Favorite Units, because they are are not as good as you think they should be?

Why do you shelve entire armies because you “New Codex” was not what you wanted it to be?

The only time I Shelved an Army is when the 2nd Edition Imperial Guard Army Codex came out and I needed to buy another $100 worth of models to make it Legal to play. The same with 3rd and 4th, then the 5th edition Guard Codex came out and I did not have to spend a single dime to make it legal once more.

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

Could you not have a good game will All “Bad Units” as you could with an All “Good Unit” game?

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

I like this post. A lot.

Im competitive. I think people who are want to "practice", because most competitive people learned in sports and in other arena's that practice is the only way to master a skill and stay sharp with it. So we probably tend to play tourney lists to that end. Saves time having to transfer army stuff to and fro the display board also.

Having said that... I dedicated my blog to the idea that you CAN win with unorthodox tactics and units. You may lose a game or two INITIALLY while you figure out the way around the "limitations" of the unit (and find unexpected gems in their strengths), but you find that the meta in general is not very flexible. Just READ some of the threads here! Such lesser often used units do surprisingly well just because no one really has a "hard counter" to it (Gawds I hate that term but its out there, so...), It is surprising how much ingenuity we have when we tap into it and dont let ourselves get trapped by stinkin' thinkin' negative thoughts and apply ourselves to the problem.

So I think you CAN win, even win often, and yes with units that aren't favored by the meta. And if you care nothing about losing (which IS different than liking towin which we all do) then you may become more skillful for having chosen to play your way. I think it's great.

Just don't be hypocritical at some point and decide that your opponent is "doing it wrong" by not playing weaker lists. For some, money is too tight to experiment. For others, their gaming time is so precious and rare that losing is a bigger deal to them (and rightly so in those cases, as no one likes to lose all the time and "all the time" for some people is the once-a-month they even GET to play).

So I kind of allow for a lot of lattitude and try not to be too harch of other peoples objectives in bringing a competitive army. Many times it has to do with more than just wanting to win.

I know for me personally, I like to switch back and forth between hyper competative lists and themed forces based on my oponant. Some people in my local gaming club have big egos and it is fun for me to crush them with hyper competative armies. Some people play just to have fun and those people get the fun fluffy lists with the occasional useless choices. Nothing wrong with running both I think.