Is causal fun non comp 40k dead all i see is riptidrs wirthknights ig knights and escalation units. its like a arms race now. I don't have that kind of money to go buy a whole army of ig knights our to get escalation units. last guy i played had a ig knight army with a war hound titan i said he spent over $1300 to build this army because it couldnt be beat.

Casual games are not dead.

Most of the guys I play with don't use Escalation, IK, Stronghold Assault, etc.

 Happyjew wrote:
Casual games are not dead.

Most of the guys I play with don't use Escalation, IK, Stronghold Assault, etc.

Casual isn't dead, but it can be hard to find depending on your local meta. I play casual, but I also play with a small group of friends and avoid the tournament scene entirely. You can find casual players, you just have to ask around. There are a few competative players who have casual lists as well as tourney lists, and I'm sure they'd love an excuse to play something other than triptide or seerstar.

Yes its dead.

sell all your stuff (to me) and walk away.

No need to post two threads about the same topic.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/590501.page#6740570

I think this is just about different enough.

I don't think casual play is dead I think the trick to finding those sort of games is all about negotiation. I am lucky to have a regular group of 4 players who have similar ideas of what constitutes a "fun" game so we cater our lists to ensure that we aren't just curb stomping one another. That negotiation is easier for us since we know each other outside of gaming and have something at stake in terms of not coming off as donkey-caves to one another. I would imagine pick-up games with strangers are more difficult to negotiate as you have to be very clear about what is and is not allowed (which could hurt feelings if your opponent refuses to play against your list or vise versa) and that is further complicated by the lack of accountability one has with strangers.

But really, a fun game has always been about negotiating. You have always had to agree on points totals as well as which special rules and units were going to be allowed, GW has just made that list of items to agree upon longer and more complicated to navigate. Which is a bit of a nightmare. Last year I met a new player and discussing the terms of our first few games felt awkward and a little like negotiating sex with a new partner. "Do you like this? What about that?" Thankfully as we continued to play and that new player became integrated into my larger gaming group the game negotiating became less stressful and cautious and more fun. The same applies for the sex.

Casual 40k is still an awesome game with tons of fun. If you have TFG / WAAC friends who always buy the latest, OP stuff and play complete cheese lists to crush their enemies, it's not the game you gotta blame, but the people you play with.

I played Necrons when they were utter trash and completely worthless and had tons of fun because I'm not going in expecting to win every match, I love my army and its fluff (the ACTUAL fluff, not the crap Matt Ward came up with).

You, for yourself, have to figure out what you want. Want to crush your enemies and win everytime? Play Tau / Eldar and faceroll everything, zero skill required.

Want to just have fun with the game and have a good time? Look for a gaming club in your area, settle down with them and enjoy fun 40k games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
I think this is just about different enough.

Thanks anyway

You're playing against the wrong guys. "Casual" is plenty alive, there have always been and will always be those who dump money to try to get the best army.

zilka86 wrote:
Is causal fun non comp 40k dead all i see is riptidrs wirthknights ig knights and escalation units. its like a arms race now. I don't have that kind of money to go buy a whole army of ig knights our to get escalation units. last guy i played had a ig knight army with a war hound titan i said he spent over $1300 to build this army because it couldnt be beat.

Hello again mr "I have 2000 points in every army, except I only list five armies, and describe a competitive meta when your lists are very much non-competitive."

How are you today?

Casual lets me run 2 Tacs, a Dev, an ASM, and a captain all as full squads/weapons, and have a great time. In my meta, I can do that any time I want.

Out of About 30 people who play around here, there is really only one who causes problems in this regard.

In our meta, at least, casual is the default!

(Which is also the reason my third Serpent hasn't left the table it was assembled on, and the second hasn't been fielded probably all year)

All of the changes that have been going on really just do one thing (relevant this particular conversation), and that is that the game now allows you to play the game more in the way that you want to play the game.

If you're finding out that the people you're playing with are WAAC, it's not because they weren't WAAC before, it's that now their fetters have been broken off, and they can now expose their priorities for what they are, and likely always have been.

It's just easier now that you can use allies instead of codex hopping, and that you can now play titans in escalation, rather than having to beg your opponent to allow forgeworld and D weapons in.

On the plus side, though, it made playing the game as one wants easier for everyone, not just WAAC players.

In any case, if you don't get along well with the people you're playing with, then I'd recommend finding new people to play with, or find some kind of convincing series of arguments with regards to why that kind of play isn't the point of 40k...

 Ailaros wrote:
All of the changes that have been going on really just do one thing (relevant this particular conversation), and that is that the game now allows you to play the game more in the way that you want to play the game.

If you're finding out that the people you're playing with are WAAC, it's not because they weren't WAAC before, it's that now their fetters have been broken off, and they can now expose their priorities for what they are, and likely always have been.

It's just easier now that you can use allies instead of codex hopping, and that you can now play titans in escalation, rather than having to beg your opponent to allow forgeworld and D weapons in.

On the plus side, though, it made playing the game as one wants easier for everyone, not just WAAC players.

In any case, if you don't get along well with the people you're playing with, then I'd recommend finding new people to play with, or find some kind of convincing series of arguments with regards to why that kind of play isn't the point of 40k...

Ailaros, buddy.

This guy is a noted troll who's just resurfaced.

I wouldn't take anything he says at face value.

Especially when he made this thread within an hour of misinterpreting something Sigvatr said in a thread on how to kill Imperial Knights.

100% of the games I play (even Escalation games) are causal.

Does that mean I'm really dead? I've been wondering...

 jasper76 wrote:
100% of the games I play (even Escalation games) are causal.

Does that mean I'm really dead? I've been wondering...

Yes, you are a ghost.

Don't worry, I'm a trained pastafarian exorcist.

As long as you have a core group of guys and gals that like to play; then no it will never be dead.

Well, you need to forge a narrative by holding a pre-game conference with your opponent and map out your army lists and the results of each die roll.

See, that's much better than having balanced rules, isn't it?

 Kain wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
100% of the games I play (even Escalation games) are causal.

Does that mean I'm really dead? I've been wondering...

Yes, you are a ghost.

Don't worry, I'm a trained pastafarian exorcist.

So you've been blessed by the Noodly One's Noodly Appendage? Sweet.

Only by embracing his noodly appendage can one truly understand how ninjas and pirates created the universe..

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
100% of the games I play (even Escalation games) are causal.

Does that mean I'm really dead? I've been wondering...

Yes, you are a ghost.

Don't worry, I'm a trained pastafarian exorcist.

So you've been blessed by the Noodly One's Noodly Appendage? Sweet.

We will begin when I have cooked the sacred bowl of chicken noodle progresso soup to perfection.

"Casual" isn't dead. Any game not played in a competitive setting (e.g. a tournament) is automatically "casual" regardless of difficulty level.

Sounds like OP's local meta is full "arms race" mode though.

zilka86 wrote:
Is causal fun non comp 40k dead all i see is riptidrs wirthknights ig knights and escalation units. its like a arms race now. I don't have that kind of money to go buy a whole army of ig knights our to get escalation units. last guy i played had a ig knight army with a war hound titan i said he spent over $1300 to build this army because it couldnt be beat.

1300 is alot for a warhound and a knight... if legit those 2 are about 800 ish... how big a game were you playing that he still spent another 500$. i mean those 2 are pushing over 1k points on their own... (not sure on knights points)

All I do is casual. But I think the definition of "casual" differs per person.
My definition is: Don't bring obvious OP Spam armies that are made to only win tournament.
Granted, its not a very good definition because there's a lot of gray area, so it's kind of a case by case basis with the player being a huge determining factor.

A little communication before the game is a huge help. Is that ideal? Not really. Is it necessary for a fun game? Most of the time, yes.

When was 40K NOT an arms race?

Where I live I have all kinds of options, I've got a group of ~10 people (mostly old buds from high school) and we play at each other's houses, very casual gameplay. I can go to my local GW store for a semi-competitive game, and tourneys if I want full WAAC lists, but the whole spectrum is alive and well.

He had 4knight and a warhound titan

zilka86 wrote:
He had 4knight and a warhound titan

Not in a 2k point game he's not if he had literally anything else in his army.

Martel732 wrote:
When was 40K NOT an arms race?

Maybe during Rogue Trader when you had a GM involved.

MAYBE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zilka86 wrote:
He had 4knight and a warhound titan

What points level where you playing at where he could take that?

zilka86 wrote:
He had 4knight and a warhound titan

That army is 2200-2220 points, with no upgrades. How many points were you playing?

It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

zilka86 wrote:
It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

Warhounds are 720, not 500.

 Happyjew wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

Warhounds are 720, not 500.

I knew something sounded off there. Without my Apoc book immediately handy I couldn't pin it down though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

Warhounds are 720, not 500.

I knew something sounded off there. Without my Apoc book immediately handy I couldn't pin it down though.

This isn't the first time Zilka's got something like this wrong, which is why I seriously doubt just about everything he says.

 Happyjew wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

Warhounds are 720, not 500.

warhounds are a bit more than that... still close enough... i pay about that for a thunderhawk.... and if knights are 400 ish thats 2500k`ish points with NOTHING else...

did you even check his list? is it even legal? and again, in 2 threads its been said, get your 5th ed models specced up for 6th ed... in fact i think its been said on about 7 occasions now...

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

Warhounds are 720, not 500.

warhounds are a bit more than that... still close enough... i pay about that for a thunderhawk.... and if knights are 400 ish thats 2500k`ish points with NOTHING else...

did you even check his list? is it even legal? and again, in 2 threads its been said, get your 5th ed models specced up for 6th ed... in fact i think its been said on about 7 occasions now...

Nope, 720 points. Double-checked it. It used to be 750, but got a slight point drop in the new rules.

Thunderhawk is 685 (plus options)

I have know idea the cost of escalation units as i don't own the book and he had a army list he showed me that said it was 500 points how was i to know he was cheating me. Ok so can you run 9 lrbt and a banebland and 3vetsquads in chimres for 2000pt old dex not nee one

 Kain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

Warhounds are 720, not 500.

I knew something sounded off there. Without my Apoc book immediately handy I couldn't pin it down though.

This isn't the first time Zilka's got something like this wrong, which is why I seriously doubt just about everything he says.

In his defense he could be referencing what he was told (which means if this isn't the first time he's had this happen he needs to double check things on his own).

zilka86 wrote:
I have know idea the cost of escalation units as i don't own the book and he had a army list he showed me that said it was 500 points how was i to know he was cheating me. Ok so can you run 9 lrbt and a banebland and 3vetsquads in chimres for 2000pt old dex not nee one

...This post is at "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" levels of non-sequitur.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
warhounds are a bit more than that... still close enough... i pay about that for a thunderhawk.... and if knights are 400 ish thats 2500k`ish points with NOTHING else...

did you even check his list? is it even legal? and again, in 2 threads its been said, get your 5th ed models specced up for 6th ed... in fact i think its been said on about 7 occasions now...

370-375 is right for the Knights depending on type so that math was right at least.

Please try to double-check your posts before posting, I am really having trouble understanding them :/

Never, ever play against someone without a copy of the rules. Never.

 Happyjew wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
It was 2k each knight was 375 i believe and warhound 500

Warhounds are 720, not 500.

warhounds are a bit more than that... still close enough... i pay about that for a thunderhawk.... and if knights are 400 ish thats 2500k`ish points with NOTHING else...

did you even check his list? is it even legal? and again, in 2 threads its been said, get your 5th ed models specced up for 6th ed... in fact i think its been said on about 7 occasions now...

Nope, 720 points. Double-checked it. It used to be 750, but got a slight point drop in the new rules.

Thunderhawk is 685 (plus options)

hrmm ill need to look at my book but i accept your word for it i thought it was still 750. and yeah Thawk would get the bigger main gun and possibly the bombs

That's my problem i don't know how to update to new ed i have no idea what to get and such i don't want to dbe a flyer spam jerk bikes and drop pods arnt my cup of tea i use my rhinos but ther rubbish now

zilka86 wrote:
I have know idea the cost of escalation units as i don't own the book and he had a army list he showed me that said it was 500 points how was i to know he was cheating me. Ok so can you run 9 lrbt and a banebland and 3vetsquads in chimres for 2000pt old dex not nee one

If this has happened before (and it sounds like it has) then you should be asking to see the rulebook, owning Escalation or not.

Not that Escalation allows anyone to take the Imperial Titans (Baneblade variants and Thunderhawks for the Imperium) on it's own anyways. FW released the list that allowed that and you still need the Apoc book to reference for it.

zilka86 wrote:
I have know idea the cost of escalation units as i don't own the book and he had a army list he showed me that said it was 500 points how was i to know he was cheating me. Ok so can you run 9 lrbt and a banebland and 3vetsquads in chimres for 2000pt old dex not nee one

and you didnt look at his list and go mmmmmmmm thats fishy as.... can i see your rules please.... and a baneblade with a couple of options is up to 600 ish points..

stop being stooged by players in that playgroup, thats starting to seem to be a thing for them..

So do i need to get my own escalation book so i can get the points on escalation units?
Because iam finding most escalation units only cost 300 to 600pts baneblade being the cheapest at 300

Sigh.

Everyone who USES certain models MUST bring the rules. NOT his opponent. If you cannot show me the rules for a unit, you may not use it. It's simple as that.

zilka86 wrote:
So do i need to get my own escalation book so i can get the points on escalation units?
Because iam finding most escalation units only cost 300 to 600pts baneblade being the cheapest at 300

Baneblades are not the cheapest. Banehammers are the cheapest and they are still more than 400 points.

zilka86 wrote:
So do i need to get my own escalation book so i can get the points on escalation units?
Because iam finding most escalation units only cost 300 to 600pts baneblade being the cheapest at 300

who said 300 for a baneblade?? 525+ options, usually id say another 100+ points....

make them bring their rules, or your gonna keep getting cheated and we can have this chat every week

zilka86 wrote:
So do i need to get my own escalation book so i can get the points on escalation units?
Because iam finding most escalation units only cost 300 to 600pts baneblade being the cheapest at 300

Ideally your opponent needs to have the book handy (ALL of the rulebooks in this case as the Warhound is a FW edition whose rules are from Apoc), especially since there are extra rules about VP and a special Warlord Traits table you get access too if he brings a Lord of War.

Zilka....is this the guy that said his entire SM army will be invalidated with the new Codex? And his run-on sentences have gotten about 5% better.

If you don't understand the armies you're going up against and don't even bother to check them out, of course you're going to lose.

If anything, Casual 40K is stronger then ever. The broken, idiotic and poorly written dataslates and expansions benefit casual players, who don't care about silly things like balance and consistency, and just want to have a good time forging narratives and snacking on beer and pretzels with their bros. "Can you use your knights in our game tonight? Sure brah, so long as you bring the beer!!111!11"

It's the people that care about balance and would like to play the game in a competitive manner who are getting screwed.

Casual 40k isn't dead. It's all that's left.

 azreal13 wrote:
Casual 40k isn't dead. It's being looked after on the Rock by the Watchers.

Fixed that for you.

Why is Jim abusing the magician?

 Happyjew wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Casual 40k isn't dead. It's being looked after on the Rock by the Watchers.

Fixed that for you.

Ha!

I admire your optimism. It is also, I guess, possibly hunting through the webway, slowly healing while in stasis or awaiting the completion of a scavenger hunt?

More likely it is with Russ. At the bar. Go past Cadia, turn left at the first junction within the Eye. Can't miss it.

I love casual games and am lucky enough to have a brother who plays, we want to beat each other of course but neither of us is going to build a deathstar anytime soon.

Balanced rules support all forms of play better. No other game has to worry about "casual" play outside of "what's your point value" and go.

I SMH at these threads and the hoops we have to jump through to determine what's legal. As a person who travels a lot, "casual" play is different for every store in 40k. It's like this for no other game.

"Casual" play at my first store was hard lists. Next store was kitten paws but the one 15 minutes further was hit 'em hard, again. So on, so forth.

If 40k had better rules this wouldn't be an issue or even a thread. That's the point I take from even having threads like these.

No other game has to worry about "casual" play outside of "what's your point value" and go.

Haven't kept up with the many iterations of MTG, have you?

If by "casual" you mean "build a deck out of whatever cards you have laying around" rather than "gotta play using the current restricted tournament lists because otherwise forty-seven Black Lotuses show up and the world divides by Zero", then MTG falls apart into some horribly broken deck combos. Players actually have to agree on a "rule set" to follow to play MTG if they hope to maintain some kind of balance, which limits the age, era and type of decks they can use.

I haven't played what this community defines as a "serious" (as opposed to "casual") list in the nearly 20 years that I have played the game. I own absolutely nothing that would be in the current meta for any of my armies, save for the two falcons in my Eldar army that can have turrets swapped into be Wave Serpents. But mine have been around since 3rd edition, when Forgeworld first produced them.

My game group is a small group of people who know each other, which especially nowadays works to our benefit in 40K. The stuff that hits my gaming table would be absolutely scorn-worthy here on Dakka, it is so casual. Half the time 4th edition rules are used to old armies like Kroot Mercenaries, Legion or the Damned (as an army) and Space Wolves 13th Company can be fielded. Or Blood Angels terminators using the Deathwing codex, but without any of the extra-fancy stuff.

Knights are absolutely laughed at because you can buy a small starter army for the same price instead.

 Psienesis wrote:

No other game has to worry about "casual" play outside of "what's your point value" and go.

Haven't kept up with the many iterations of MTG, have you?

If by "casual" you mean "build a deck out of whatever cards you have laying around" rather than "gotta play using the current restricted tournament lists because otherwise forty-seven Black Lotuses show up and the world divides by Zero", then MTG falls apart into some horribly broken deck combos. Players actually have to agree on a "rule set" to follow to play MTG if they hope to maintain some kind of balance, which limits the age, era and type of decks they can use.

Hey, but at least there's an official list of various formats so everyone sings off the same hymn sheet.

40K has the same thing going on, just in reverse. 40K in its current iteration allows for pretty much everything short of the "everything and anything goes Apoc". It's only until you get into the "Escalation is fine, but no FW, yes to one LoW but no SHA" type rulesets that people run into problems.

GW has provided us with a single hymnal to sing from, but people keep wanting to change the words of the song.

 Psienesis wrote:

No other game has to worry about "casual" play outside of "what's your point value" and go.

Haven't kept up with the many iterations of MTG, have you?

If by "casual" you mean "build a deck out of whatever cards you have laying around" rather than "gotta play using the current restricted tournament lists because otherwise forty-seven Black Lotuses show up and the world divides by Zero", then MTG falls apart into some horribly broken deck combos. Players actually have to agree on a "rule set" to follow to play MTG if they hope to maintain some kind of balance, which limits the age, era and type of decks they can use.

Correction, Miniatures Games, as you cannot compare a CCG to Warhammer 40k.

Wizards actively manages the Magic community with multiple formats that either play on luck of the draw, building decks from current print series, or "anything goes". Heroclix falls into this category, too. The relative low cost of barrier to entry into MTG also makes this a moot point.

But one concept still applies: If you have better cards from your "random pile laying around" than your opponent, you're more likely to win. If you mash random 40k armies together, some books will still be more powerful and some units will be more potent.

A balanced and actively mantained game is better for "casual" play than one that is not. It means that there is no difference between casual or competitive lists, no one feels outclassed on the table top prior to fight beginning. There's no issue about you can't bring this or that. There less subjectivity, such as "what is spam?" Some people might think 4 serpents is spam, or maybe 2 or maybe having one at all.

I hate the term and the fact that in a well balanced game it does not matter. It comes down to player skill and ability to operate one's force within the confines of the game.

I disagree.

You've already specified several items in your post, then we can throw all sorts of other things in that pile (data slates? Non print codexes?)

But then, within that already shaky structure, you have the fact that WAAC and Casual are actual play styles, whereas in Magic, they are largely restricted to being an attitude.

War hound + knights would be completely unable to touch a stormraven.

Ask to see rule books. Not just at the game.

I mean next time you go to your 40k hangout, don't play,just ask if you can sit there with the knights codex, or escalation, or an army codex you don't know, and READ.

Sun Tzu wasn't kidding when he said knowing your enemy helps. We have a guy who loses 80% of the time, and at least half of his losses I could have easily made wins, just because he sets his army on the table like throwing darts at a board and attacks everything with no plan. Doesn't have any clue what he's actually playing against.

On the other hand, people who play against me constantly find themselves 1" outside melta or rapid fire range of my vehicles, are always held up in throwaway challenges or completely outmatched in a challenge, and have to constantly contend with cover saves with their good AP weapons.

Even with Blood Angels, I win way more than I lose. Like in the 90-10 split zone.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you have TFG / WAAC friends who always buy the latest, OP stuff and play complete cheese lists to crush their enemies, it's not the game you gotta blame, but the people you play with.

You have that backwards. If the game were designed competently you could take whatever you wanted and not have to worry about "cheese lists".

If the game weren't hilariously broken then I could play my Tau without a thousand people immediately labeling me "WAAC" or "TFG" (or implying I can "faceroll" every game of 40k now) regardless of what my list actually looks like or my attitude.

 azreal13 wrote:
I disagree.

You've already specified several items in your post, then we can throw all sorts of other things in that pile (data slates? Non print codexes?)

But then, within that already shaky structure, you have the fact that WAAC and Casual are actual play styles, whereas in Magic, they are largely restricted to being an attitude.

No, the point is that you do not have to make the distinction in any other wargame. If I want to play Warmachine, I say 50 pts? and we go. Infinity... 150 or 300? And so, so on. I don't need to specifiy "hard list, soft lift, no I won't play Eldar with 4 wave serpents, yea 3 is okay, no lords of war, no formations, just one ally... etc. etc.".

That's the point. I don't care how people play, I just wish folks would realize that by the community needing to make such a distinction that it intrisicly points to how bad the rules are. And better rules would mean who cares if you play competitive (WAAC is another dumb term, smart people should stop using it) or "casual". It flat would not matter. You both say 1500 and you play the game.

To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

When two people play a casual game of 40K, they are both agreeing that some units are just not any fun to play against, so they either don;t bother using them, or use them very sparingly. For example, a single Riptide because you love the model, but you aren't spamming three of them.

It's just that 6th edition is increasingly hard to play "casual" because everything GW wants to sell well is being completely juiced up. The codex balance is so all over the board it's crazy.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is actively maintained for balance.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

Have my exalt, almost looks like a textbook definition

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning.

So jetbike/skimmer-heavy Saim Hann lists for Eldar. Or battlesuit-heavy Tau with Farsight.

So in reality it's actually not okay to build "themed" lists or otherwise stay true to your army's background, or it's only okay if your chosen army isn't currently "overpowered" and then you have to either buy a new one or play them in a way that doesn't make sense.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

Both Eldar lists are actually every bit as overpowered as "triptide" is, so yes they are the same.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

When two people play a casual game of 40K, they are both agreeing that some units are just not any fun to play against, so they either don;t bother using them, or use them very sparingly. For example, a single Riptide because you love the model, but you aren't spamming three of them.

It's just that 6th edition is increasingly hard to play "casual" because everything GW wants to sell well is being completely juiced up. The codex balance is so all over the board it's crazy.

Or bull sh*t allies that have no business teaming up with each other; and no the "but the rule book says I can" is not an excuse its cheese.

My Eldar army is themed as jetbike/skimmer heavy Saim-Hann, since 2nd edition. That's not the same as crazy Heldrake lists, of the like. Or playing Tau-Dar just because it's so powerful. Allying in the smallest possible amount from another army just to get the stuff that covers your army's weaknesses, etc.

There's a fine distinction, but it's there.

The bad thing is when an old army list you have been playing for years suddenly becomes the new cheese build because of horrible game balancing by GW. Used to be my one or two Wave Serpents were just because I wanted some good foot troops who could keep up with my jetbikes, and Falcons just plain don't carry enough. Now they have crazy overpowered broken "shield guns" and everyone builds around that being a strength.

 TheKbob wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I disagree.

You've already specified several items in your post, then we can throw all sorts of other things in that pile (data slates? Non print codexes?)

But then, within that already shaky structure, you have the fact that WAAC and Casual are actual play styles, whereas in Magic, they are largely restricted to being an attitude.

No, the point is that you do not have to make the distinction in any other wargame. If I want to play Warmachine, I say 50 pts? and we go. Infinity... 150 or 300? And so, so on. I don't need to specifiy "hard list, soft lift, no I won't play Eldar with 4 wave serpents, yea 3 is okay, no lords of war, no formations, just one ally... etc. etc.".

That's the point. I don't care how people play, I just wish folks would realize that by the community needing to make such a distinction that it intrisicly points to how bad the rules are. And better rules would mean who cares if you play competitive (WAAC is another dumb term, smart people should stop using it) or "casual". It flat would not matter. You both say 1500 and you play the game.

Wasn't actually disagreeing with you dude, you just managed to jump in as I was replying to Psiensis' post above yours (that'll teach me not to quote because I'm only writing a short reply immediately after a post.)

You're quite right with no other wargame needs the same level of specification, but Magic is an example of a game where potential massive imbalance exists, but there are structures in place to allow players to know roughly what play space they're occupying with a minimum of to-ing and for-ing.

There's no substitute for overhauling 40K and trying hard to bring everything up to as level a playing field as is possible, but some sort of official "format" list might just be a potential short term measure, or even something that is simple enough that the community could implement and broadly agree on.

Its not just about what you take, its also about how you use it.

For example id see a saim hann force as fluffy if it used falcons (eldar main battle tank), vypers (their source of support) and jet bikes (they shouldn't be using ground troops to get wave serpents really).

Or the jetseer, why cant the psykers spread out to lead the guardians etc (thats more fluffy to me than having all of them ride around being the killing power).

Tau with farsight? Or just farsight? Because just farsight well of course there is nothing wrong with that.

In short its not the units you bring as much as how you use them. The fact that your lists have names such as jetseer for example, already shows its a commonly used tournament list. Most casual lists have names such as the Praetorian 8th or the munkee sept (e.g a fluffy name). Its easy to make a fluffy list, and play a fluffy list.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

So you've never played against any of those 4 I take it? Triptide is nothing compared to a White Scars or Jetseeer list, unless you're talking specifically about O'vesa Star.

Technically FMC "spam" daemons is fluffy as daemons do not have a set structure. A tournament Nids list with 9 MCs, 5 of them flying (without formations), is "fluffy" as the Nids are about adapt and overcome.

The hand wave of "flufy" doesn't work. What most people mean is that they have an unwritten mindset baked into their local community/group of friends in which they normally play with. And from my experience of traveling for work, everyone has a different idea what casual is. And this is entirely different from any other wargame.


Legal Samm Hain force:

Farseer (Jetbike)
-Warlock (Jetbike)

Farseer (Jetbike)
-Warlock (Jetbike)

5x Fire Dragaons
- Wave Serpent

5x Fire Dragaons
- Wave Serpent

10x Guardians
- Wave Serpent

10x Guardians
- Wave Serpent

5x Jetbikes

5x Jetbikes

Fire Prism

Fire Prism

It meets the criteria of all fast "nobody walks" platforms. I don't see any rules saying, per the Samm Hain fluff, I must run Vypers or Falcons. What's more, is GW made the Falcon, the main "heavy support tank" for Eldar worse than the Wave Serpent.

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

So you've never played against any of those 4 I take it? Triptide is nothing compared to a White Scars or Jetseeer list, unless you're talking specifically about O'vesa Star.

Technically FMC "spam" daemons is fluffy as daemons do not have a set structure. A tournament Nids list with 9 MCs, 5 of them flying (without formations), is "fluffy" as the Nids are about adapt and overcome.

The hand wave of "flufy" doesn't work. What most people mean is that they have an unwritten mindset baked into their local community/group of friends in which they normally play with. And from my experience of traveling for work, everyone has a different idea what casual is. And this is entirely different from any other wargame.

I have fielded a heavily "Saim Hann eldar"-themed army since 4th edition. It just probably doesn't have nearly what current competitive players consider to be must haves. I guarantee what I think is fun to use would be "quaint" in it's mediocrity to most of Dakka.

Well saim hann are made up of clans of jet bike riders... all their art depicts them as making use of vypers and jet bikes along with falcon tanks. It states the falcon tank is the main battkle tank of the eldar. They can use fire prisms too. But your list isnt fluffy, its fluffy until you crammed wave serpents in a jet bike troops list for the gun.

Jet tanks, jetbikes, jet bike heroes and jet bike support are a saim hann list, not ground troops sitting in transports. Im not looking to start an argument. I just thought id say how unfluffy some of those lists are. (in my opinion of course).

The list should be swimming with teams of skimmers and support skimmers doing hit and run tactics. But no, you just wanted wave serpents and hid it under a less "than half fluffy" attempt of a themed list. Well thats what id think if you made a point of saying I have a fluffy list and brought that to a game.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I have fielded a heavily "Saim Hann eldar"-themed army since 4th edition. It just probably doesn't have nearly what current competitive players consider to be must haves. I guarantee what I think is fun to use would be "quaint" in it's mediocrity to most of Dakka.

I have zero problem with what you want to bring in a game, be it smash face or you threw darts at your codex summary. I just want a ruleset that doesn't penalize players for list building.

List building should actively be about play style. Army selection for the general theme and unit selection/composition for tools within the theme selected. I actively dislike the fact that certain units or models are virtually unplayable in their form for either needing a heavy amount of support or being so worthless that it's an active detriment to your army composition to try and use them.

As a SoB player, I'm looking right at my elite slots...

Edit: And So Samm Hainn would never use any foot infantry to hold a position? So fluff must mean complete incompetance, right? And again, it doesn't address that the Falcon is actually worse than the Wave Serpent as a gun platform. The rules within the codex are not supporting the fluff. Plus, I could then just stuff fire dragons in falcons, if I so chose, double down on bikes, and make a jetseer council to lead it. Nothing says that a farseer doesn't want to be surrounded by his closest council to ride into battle for one last valiant effort. No matter what, though, an all Eldar grav tank army would still be miles better than many other fluffy armies.

 TheKbob wrote:

Edit: And So Samm Hainn would never use any foot infantry to hold a position? So fluff must mean complete incompetance, right? And again, it doesn't address that the Falcon is actually worse than the Wave Serpent as a gun platform. The rules within the codex are not supporting the fluff. Plus, I could then just stuff fire dragons in falcons, if I so chose, double down on bikes, and make a jetseer council to lead it. Nothing says that a farseer doesn't want to be surrounded by his closest council to ride into battle for one last valiant effort. No matter what, though, an all Eldar grav tank army would still be miles better than many other fluffy armies.

No they dont, hit and run means they they are mobile and use guerrilla warfare. Remember the eldar are all about tradition, why would a bunch of traditional bike riders who view combat on their family bikes as a great honour, be running on the ground? Also why would the leaders all be grouped together killing? They are (in all the fluff i have read) spread out amongst the troops to offer support. Jetseer councils are not fluffy. They would if anything, be leading all the bikes in a large valiant effort, the seers are not a hammer, they are a support and leader group.

Fire dragons are fine though, aspects dont change because of home world. Wave serpent or falcon thats fluffy for me. But the civilians (everything not aspecty or seery or wraithy) would all be on jet bike and manning the support vehicles.



I know that yes there are some fluffy but too strong armies, but for the most part these lists are far from fluffy.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The bad thing is when an old army list you have been playing for years suddenly becomes the new cheese build because of horrible game balancing by GW. Used to be my one or two Wave Serpents were just because I wanted some good foot troops who could keep up with my jetbikes, and Falcons just plain don't carry enough. Now they have crazy overpowered broken "shield guns" and everyone builds around that being a strength.

Which is kinda like me trying to play Tau at all now. Even if I try to intentionally weaken my list by avoiding the obvious builds (riptide spam, Eldar allies), I still get gak for spamming crisis suits, or because my hammerheads and devilfish get Jink saves for moving an inch, etc. I could run my 5th edition list exactly as I did back then and people would still call my army "overpowered".

As for the wave serpent argument, I only have one thing to say: look at the fething box art. Go look at the product page on GW's website. Saim Hann colors. Pretty sure you can also find guardians painted in Saim Hann colors, too...the ground troops that Saim Hann supposedly never, ever use. You can even find wraith units painted in Saim Hann colors. God damn, GW clearly doesn't understand anything about their own fluff!

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If anything, Casual 40K is stronger then ever. The broken, idiotic and poorly written dataslates and expansions benefit casual players, who don't care about silly things like balance and consistency, and just want to have a good time forging narratives and snacking on beer and pretzels with their bros. "Can you use your knights in our game tonight? Sure brah, so long as you bring the beer!!111!11"

It's the people that care about balance and would like to play the game in a competitive manner who are getting screwed.

Well this was blown way out of proportion...

By that logic casual players should not have a problem with Jetseer councils or Screamer Star because it about the "FTN"

Fact: Not all casual players are like what you have described, I for one am a casual gamer who cares about balance because once half my army starts getting one-shotted due to some triple-tide with a Farseer is when I (and probably other casuals) would have problems with, just like how (surprise, surprise) most competitive gamers would have problems with stuff like this and the current death star problem

In other words, don't stereotype a bunch of gamers in one pen, not all of us casual gamers stereotype competitive gamers as WAAC/TFG's like the internet likes to hear.


Back to OP I don't think casual 40k is dead, just depends on your local games stores attitude to the game, for me at my FLGS I feel as if 40k has become this "arms race" you speak of so I have now backed out until it calms down in my area so I don't put up with people exploiting rules/codex's, but that is how my FLGS is going in direction so that is my FLGS, not the game.

At the end of the day its not the game we play but the players who shape what type of game the game becomes in my opinion.

This issue at its core is really quite simple. Here is what I do...

I treat all of my games like a mid-evil battler or an old-school gang fight. The terms of the battle are discussed before we even start pulling models out of our cases and in most instances, before we even make our army lists.

You know the scene in Gangs of New York after Amsterdam challenges Vallon to a gang fight; where they meet to discuss what weapons can be used? Same idea here...

I do not believe that GW is intentionally trying to create an environment where 'anything goes' with Escalation, Dataslates, etc.. I think they're trying to push us to communicate with one another.

 happygolucky wrote:


By that logic casual players should not have a problem with Jetseer councils or Screamer Star because it about the "FTN"

If you're using jetseer councils and screamerstar, you're not a casual player.

if you are a casual player, and you're playing against someone who is throwing a jetseer council or screamerstar at you, your opponent is not a casual player.

So my logic is fine. Two casual players playing a casual match aren't going to give a gak about rules imbalance, because for them it doesn't matter. They aren't trying to take optimal lists, and winning isn't the priority for them.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:


By that logic casual players should not have a problem with Jetseer councils or Screamer Star because it about the "FTN"

If you're using jetseer councils and screamerstar, you're not a casual player.

if you are a casual player, and you're playing against someone who is throwing a jetseer council or screamerstar at you, your opponent is not a casual player.

So my logic is fine. Two casual players playing a casual match aren't going to give a gak about rules imbalance, because for them it doesn't matter. They aren't trying to take optimal lists, and winning isn't the priority for them.

Incorrect. Anyone can throw around a Jetseer council and call themselves a "casual" player and this is can create imbalance, which upsets people. This is when people start having problems. As I have said I am a casual player but I also care about balance (contradictory to your labelling of "casual") as I don't really want to play against these sorts of things just like how competitive players don't really want to be playing against these sorts of things.

In other words all you're doing is labelling a bunch of people as people who don't care about the games balance and live in a world where everything is fine, yet the fact is "casual" players do care about balance and also do not like having their army's screwed over by a couple of rules, I want to be outplayed and know I can improve my skills (and this is the same with other casuals) rather than out ruled and my only answer is to just to simply C+P the list or shove a D weapon in my own list, in order to win games.

I think its only as dead as you let it become yourself. Find like minded people and play with them, and you will more than likely always have fun.

 happygolucky wrote:
Incorrect. Anyone can throw around a Jetseer council and call themselves a "casual" player

They can call themselves that, but that doesn't mean that they are.

"No true casual" fallacy much?

GW has constructed a game where people can BUMBLE into builds that dominate their local group. This domination has led to this game dying at some stores. No "WAAC" players necessary.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Incorrect.

They can call themselves that, but that doesn't mean that they are.

Well there is not anything "official" that says they can't, so they can cower behind that curtain as they wish, to me it just tells me not to play that person.

I don't understand how your statement is related to anything I've said. Can you clarify?

Martel732 wrote:
"No true casual" fallacy much?

GW has constructed a game where people can BUMBLE into builds that dominate their local group.

Which is true of EVERY game that does not work with a set force list for every game. When I first started playing magic there a friend who was unbeatable, because he thought all the red direct damage was awesome, while I had an unhealthy fascination with craw wyrms, and another friend was fixated on serra angels and disenchants.

Not if the game is sufficiently balanced that power builds don't exist.

Varying degrees of efficacy, sure, but point and click, mindless auto wins shouldn't be a thing.

I've seen three stores die; one anything goes, one competitive, and one died before I got there but plays warmachine now.

All site the lack of balance of the game and the hard lefts that can be fielded as dissatisfying.

And Games Workshop should not have players expect to be communicating unless they start doing so themselves. I am happy there players that play in a more beer and pretzels setting coming forward to voice that they too realize balance is a good thing. And that as competitive players we too do not enjoy death star 40k or the shennanigans we see.

 Bookwrack wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No true casual" fallacy much?

GW has constructed a game where people can BUMBLE into builds that dominate their local group.

Which is true of EVERY game that does not work with a set force list for every game. When I first started playing magic there a friend who was unbeatable, because he thought all the red direct damage was awesome, while I had an unhealthy fascination with craw wyrms, and another friend was fixated on serra angels and disenchants.

Sir, have you played Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity? I have and they do not have this concern as the games are all more tightly balanced. You cannot compare wargaming to Magic the Gathering as they are fundamentally different games entirely. Because I understand general wargaming, I have stepped into at least Warmachine and Infinity, and as a new player, am winning games because I'm able to turn my opponents on ear with clever tactics to adapt; even in games where it seems I am at a severe disadvantage. And it was fun.

Many of those disenfranchised 40k players have shifted to one of those three games and all enjoy a better game of not worrying about what their opponent brings to the table besides their skill and capabilities. It's a much closer game of playing the player and not the army.

Me: "Hey, want to play a game of 40k?"
OPFOR: "Sure, lets play!"
Me: "Awesome! Are there any tournaments coming up that you want to practice for?"
OPFOR: "No, lets just throw down a fun game."
Me: "How many points?"
OPFOR: "2000?"
Me: "Are you bringing any lord of wars, Imperial Knights, or fortifications, or do you want to play against any of them?"

Its as easy as communicating with your opponent about both of your intentions before the game begins.

 rryannn wrote:


OPFOR: "No, lets just throw down a fun game."

Its as easy as communicating with your opponent about both of your intentions before the game begins.

The most subjective statement there. A tournament level game is fun for me, but not playing against a soul crushing deathstar.

Me getting a game of Warmachine:

Me: "Wanna play the derpmachine?"
Opp: "K, what points?"
Me: "I'm new, so how about 25?"
Opp: "K"

Start playing. That's it. Nothing more.

 rryannn wrote:
Me: "Hey, want to play a game of 40k?"
OPFOR: "Sure, lets play!"
Me: "Awesome! Are there any tournaments coming up that you want to practice for?"
OPFOR: "No, lets just throw down a fun game."
Me: "How many points?"
OPFOR: "2000?"
Me: "Are you bringing any lord of wars, Imperial Knights, or fortifications, or do you want to play against any of them?"

Its as easy as communicating with your opponent about both of your intentions before the game begins.

No, that establishes what expansions you're using. It does not qualify what a 'fun game' is, and this is where things fall down. To you, a fun game may be a fluffy list, with sub optimal units taken because models are cool etc..

There is nothing in the exchange you've hypothesised which precludes you or your opponent bringing a hardcore, face ripper of a list, just one that doesn't include LoW, IK or Fortifications.

That's all well and good in theory but what happens when I build a Iron Warriors list with lots of regular old marines, a couple of dreadnoughts and no helldrakes because I love the fluff but then show up to my FLGS for a game and everyone has their screamstar/dualttide/seer council lists because there is a tourney in a month they all want to practice for?

What about people that like Riptides, Knights, SHV etc? Why shouldn't they get to play the lists they like?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What about people that like Riptides, Knights, SHV etc? Why shouldn't they get to play the lists they like?

The main tournament folks are agreeing with this sentiment. Invalidating anyones army isn't fun. Setting aside D weapons as that's a special kettle of fish, they are building missions that have assymetrical goals that allow jetseers to do their thing, but an army of 60 power armor dudes, who cannot possibly hope to defeat that nonsense, to win at their "objective."

An example is the Jetseer is playing standard crusade. Their goal is to score at the end of the game with flimsy 3 man bike squads and contest as much as possible with the Council Memembers as it breaks up turn 5.

The Marines, however, are playing a scenario with the same objectives, but score points per round of being on them uncontested. So the marine player may get 1 pt per objective a turn while the eldar player only scores the normal 3 points at the end of the game per usual.

This presents a fair scenario for each army to play and requires a lot of tactical skill to play towards your mission and try to defeat your opponents (or ignore it!).

 TheKbob wrote:
If 40k had better rules this wouldn't be an issue or even a thread. That's the point I take from even having threads like these.

No, it's still be a thread because apparently the OP plays someone who is less than honest about points costs and brought Warhound and 4 Knights to a 2K game.

There's no accounting for cheaters, and this isn't the reason the OP started the thread.

 azreal13 wrote:
There's no accounting for cheaters, and this isn't the reason the OP started the thread.

It's definitely a contributing factor though since said cheater(s) are the ones running rampant in his meta and making a mess.

Casual 40k is the only 40k left, because to make 40k remotely fun or enjoyable anymore you need to bend the rules, use proxy/converts, make up your own rules, etc.. I can't imagine people playing 40k along the current lines GW outlines.

I sure hope not, that's all I'm capable of at the moment.

Because how an army is built can blur the lines greatly between casual and competitive, I prefer to categorize the two by the players involved. "Competitive" means their enjoyment is derived primarily (not necessarily completely) from winning the game, while "casual" is more where the players are getting their enjoyment from just getting to play a game where they are both sure to have fun, either win or lose.

Casual players are also the ones who "get more into it" when they are playing the game. While not necessarily making vrooming and shooting noises, they are deriving their fun from having their army fit with the universal background. In a sense, they are putting some RPG into the tabletop game, however a small amount that may be.

Competitive players always seem to be in "tournament mode".

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Casual players are also the ones who "get more into it" when they are playing the game.

I've meet plenty of tournament players who are big on the fluff... And plenty of casual players who didn't care a jot about it, and were just interested in playing the game.

I just go by my experience.

Subject: Re:is casual 40k dead

NO.

Find better friends.

Don't get me wrong, there are times a buddy will say "I am testing a competitive list' and I know not to bring my vespid....but overall, if you find people are playing lists you deem no fun to play...then don't play them.

To me, a casual game is one that I play for the fun of playing, rather than for the fun of winning. I prefer to win, that is the point of wargames, but I would rather lose a close, interesting contest than win a walk-over.

 Harriticus wrote:
Casual 40k is the only 40k left, because to make 40k remotely fun or enjoyable anymore you need to bend the rules, use proxy/converts, make up your own rules, etc.. I can't imagine people playing 40k along the current lines GW outlines.

^This.

I am surprised "competitive 40k" is still alive.

You know, I just realized something.

zilka said his opponent fielded 4 Imperial Knights and a Warhound.

How did his opponent take a Warhound? Imperial Knights do not currently have access to any Super-heavies to fill the Lord of War detachment.

I'd say casual 40k is even more alive than competitive. My friends and I are moving away from competitive 40k as we feel it's getting out of hand, and we're seeing the same thing happen with people who play at our FLGS.

Of course, I might be a localised example.

I look at this thread, and it makes me really happy that I am in a meta where everyone agrees on what is cool and what is stupid, and where we can design lists how we want them without even needing to worry about self-gimping or asking others to gimp their lists.

Example lists that you'd find in my meta:

Kharn
Flying Tzeentch psyker-DP
10 votlw Khorne chosen with 2 plasma gun
Helbrute
26 cultists
10 barebones csm
Plasmafiend
Defiler
Vindicator

Grotsnik
SAG-mek
Deff dread
20 stormboyz w/ Zagstruk
3 kans
2x30 boyz with pk nobs
Boomwagon
Big guns mob w/ kannons
10 flash gits w/ kaptin
10 lootas

Phaeron
Trazyn
Shard
2x10 warriors
2 heavy destroyers
5 deathmarks
5 scarab swarms

Prime
Flyrant
20 hormas
20 termas
2 meleefexes
3 raveners
20 gargoyles
2 biovores
2 hive guard

Do any of these lists sound fun to fight?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I'd say casual 40k is even more alive than competitive. My friends and I are moving away from competitive 40k as we feel it's getting out of hand, and we're seeing the same thing happen with people who play at our FLGS.

Of course, I might be a localised example.

Probably not. We have two gaming nights at my store. One night is Open 40K gaming and is very laid back, anything goes, however, nobody brings SA, Super-heavies, Dataslates, or "X"-spam/star. Unless a player is trying out a competitive army for an upcoming tournament of course.

The other night is an ongoing 3 month tournament. In that environment, things are (obviously) more competitive, however, with everything bar codex and codex supplements banned, nobody even brings Knights, despite being legal. Even with the competitiveness, it is still very laid back, people don't care about proxies/count-as, you might see some spam (mostly Trip-serpents), but you rarely see Triptide/Tripknight or Flyer spam, and maybe one or two "X"-stars.

Enjoying 40k is like suspension of disbelief; it is easier for some than for others.