Telling me that I have poor target optimization won't make me want to play you more.

Telling me that I have a sub-optimal list won't make me want to play you more.

Ranting about my poor tactics, about other things that I could purchase, etc. will not make me want to play you more.

Calling me a scrub or a complainer will not make me want to play you more.

Taking my requests for imposing restrictions on your army as a way of challenging yourself to make yet another optimal list under those restrictions will not make me want to play you more.

If you want to optimize, min-max, etc., that's perfectly fine.

f you want to agonize over every centimeter of range, every rules detail, over the precise positioning of your units, composition of your units, etc. to maximize your win chances to a t, even to the point of taking practically forever to deploy, that is fine.

But it won't make me want to play you more.

Of course, this goes both ways. If that's the game that you want to play, then you are certainly under no obligation to play against me.

Which, again, is fine. Because the game you are insisting on playing isn't all that fun to me anyway.

It's just tedious.

Topic of discussion:

"You see a lot of these things that I'm putting into the mouth of the min-maxer on this very website, and on other similar websites. The article about "scrubs" comes to mind. The constant cry of 'git gud' by people complaining about various flaws in the Dark Souls games comes to mind."

In point of fact, what spurred this thread was my pointing out to an opponent of mine that a combination of units he had taken had an imbalanced advantage with respect to the composition of my army. [Apocalyptic AP 2 blasts and high volumes of AP3 shots and pie plates]; I run blob marines.

[Effectively, what my opponent did was take my simple request (no wraithknights or bikes) as an opportunity to create yet another optimized, min-maxed list given those restrictions; here, some of you will criticize me for insisting on running blob marines, and you won't even notice the irony in your doing so.]

What ensued was a lengthy lecture on his part about my various tactical mistakes, list flaws, etc.

You see this in the general tendencies on this forum as well as other forums. "What, you can't handle my wraithknight? Git gud, scrub. Spam grav bikes." Or some such nonsense.

Again, in another subsection of dakka forums, I asked a very simple question: boltgun or boltpistol on x unit? I literally asked a question, the format of which was "A or B"? Most people refused to answer the question precisely in the format I gave. "Neither of those, you should..." Not what I asked.

The above is essentially my reply to such things.

What are your thoughts?

This kind of stuff is more suited to a blog, one-sided rants like this aren't seen (understandably) as a very conducive topic for a forum.

 Grimskul wrote:
This kind of stuff is more suited to a blog, one-sided rants like this aren't seen (understandably) as a very conducive topic for a forum.

The topic of discussion is pretty clear, it seems to me.

Would you care to take the defense of the min-maxer?

Traditio wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
This kind of stuff is more suited to a blog, one-sided rants like this aren't seen (understandably) as a very conducive topic for a forum.

The topic of discussion is pretty clear, it seems to me.

Would you care to take the defense of the min-maxer?

Game is deeply flawed. Only fun when played with like minded folk. Don't play with players with diametrically opposed preferences.

Eldarain wrote:Game is deeply flawed. Only fun when played with like minded folk. Don't play with players with diametrically opposed preferences.

Yes. That said, you see a lot of these things that I'm putting into the mouth of the min-maxer on this very website, and on other similar websites. The article about "scrubs" comes to mind. The constant cry of "git gud" by people complaining about various flaws in the Dark Souls games comes to mind.

So you lost and now you are upset?

Its one thing to not want to be a win above everything else competitive player.

It's another thing entirely when you come on here complaining about units you refuse to take the answers for

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you lost and now you are upset?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its one thing to not want to be a win above everything else competitive player.

It's another thing entirely when you come on here complaining about units you refuse to take the answers for

These are precisely the sorts of things that I mean.

You are the sorts of people I have in mind in the OP.

OP please reformat the initial post to make it clearer just what you want to discuss. As it stands, this thread isn't serving much purpose for discussion.

 motyak wrote:
OP please reformat the initial post to make it clearer just what you want to discuss. As it stands, this thread isn't serving much purpose for discussion.

Agreed. I have reformatted accordingly.

From my perspective you seem to be in a position of being very stubborn and then accusing people of being stubborn (simply put) and thats why you are not enjoying the game. Then you proceed to say its irony for any one to just say you are being but hurt about losing? You already answered your own question, don't play people that are not like minded. The discussion you seem to want to discuss is the take over of people in the lgs and online that jsut want to min/max everything. I don't really know what else you are expecting but something along the lines of bolt pistol vs gun is not really a great question to ask for the following reason, for fluff, or just the feel of your army meaning whether you want as assault or shooty unit is along the lines of what you personally want. You are not asking whats more fluffy or competitive. The answer is self given unless you bring in tactics/ strategy in, in which case yes if those are the worst options of course people are then going to disregard it . You asked whats better and people answered not whatever you just said.

I can't imagine world where the example you gave would make since in a forum with the context you specified. You are not asking hypotheticals in a vacuum, there is also context associated with 40k.

Ozomoto wrote:
I don't really know what else you are expecting but something along the lines of bolt pistol vs gun is not really a great question to ask

It's the question that I asked. "Would a boltgun or a boltpistol be better for this model?"

That's not the question that people actually answered.

You asked whats better and people answered not whatever you just said.

I asked boltgun vs. boltpistol. That was the question.

Well, on the one hand, I sympathize with the OP's position here. He's clearly not enjoying the game - I can get behind that; I'm not enjoying it much either. But I think a lot of the blame and frustration he's throwing around is misplaced. A min-maxer isn't automatically TFG for being a min-maxer or suggesting the "party line" when responding to requests for advice. In fact, many would-be min-maxers (read: those that don't play SM, Eldar, Necrons, or Tau) are in the same boat as the OP, feeling frustrated and dissatisfied after every game.

What we're dealing with here is a problem with the game itself. When it comes right down to it, 40k as a game is not that great. More specifically, it is a game with balance and mechanical problems that are so severe, they outstrip the ability of most "tactics and strategy" to satisfactorily overcome them. And that leads us to where we are now... a game that can only be enjoyed in a fishbowl; a game that has a fundamentally fractured player-base, divided into numerous little pockets of players who agree to play the same way (with the biggest fishbowl being the ITC). And like with fishbowls, the fish in one bowl usually don't like to mix with the fish in another bowl.

Honestly, OP, the answers you're looking for are never going to satisfy you because no amount of tactics and in-game decision making is going to provide you the level of performance increase that you're looking for... that's why people will tell you to change your list.

Think of it this way: If I'm forcing you to clean the floor of the FLGS with a toothbrush, it won't much matter if you have the most efficient movement pattern crawling across the tiles, or if you use an electric toothbrush vs a regular one; it's still going to take you most of the day to finish, and it's gonna be a frustrating and dissatisfying experience regardless. So don't get mad when someone tells you to just bring a mop from home like everyone else... Get mad at the Guy Who insisted that to do the job "correctly," you had to use a toothbrush in the first place.

Just my /2cents

You see, I would understand if you are complaining about games you had to play, or even games you weren't expecting that were more "elite" in nature. But are you really complaining about games your not playing? I mean correct me if wrong but saying to someone "nah I prefer not to play" should kinda be the end of the problem. Rather than "nah I prefer not to play" then writing a 100 or so word thread about your god given right not to play a board game? It's really not hard to do nothing imo.

If you don't want someones opinion, don't ask.

If you don't wanna play a game, don't play

Well, on the one hand, I sympathize with the OP's position here. He's clearly not enjoying the game - I can get behind that; I'm not enjoying it much either. But I think a lot of the blame and frustration he's throwing around is misplaced. A min-maxer isn't automatically TFG for being a min-maxer or suggesting the "party line" when responding to requests for advice. In fact, many would-be min-maxers (read: those that don't play SM, Eldar, Necrons, or Tau) are in the same boat as the OP, feeling frustrated and dissatisfied after every game.

What we're dealing with here is a problem with the game itself. When it comes right down to it, 40k as a game is not that great. More specifically, it is a game with balance and mechanical problems that are so severe, they outstrip the ability of most "tactics and strategy" to satisfactorily overcome them. And that leads us to where we are now... a game that can only be enjoyed in a fishbowl; a game that has a fundamentally fractured player-base, divided into numerous little pockets of players who agree to play the same way (with the biggest fishbowl being the ITC). And like with fishbowls, the fish in one bowl usually don't like to mix with the fish in another bowl.

Honestly, OP, the answers you're looking for are never going to satisfy you because no amount of tactics and in-game decision making is going to provide you the level of performance increase that you're looking for... that's why people will tell you to change your list.

Think of it this way: If I'm forcing you to clean the floor of the FLGS with a toothbrush, it won't much matter if you have the most efficient movement pattern crawling across the tiles, or if you use an electric toothbrush vs a regular one; it's still going to take you most of the day to finish, and it's gonna be a frustrating and dissatisfying experience regardless. So don't get mad when someone tells you to just bring a mop from home like everyone else... Get mad at the Guy Who insisted that to do the job "correctly," you had to use a toothbrush in the first place.

I can get behind that.

The bolt pistol

Completely agreeing with Xca|iber there.

The game isn't totally fair - some units are plain better than others, and some tactics will never make a sub-par list good.

As an example, I take an army of Crisis Suits for a Tau army, and equip them with nothing: no guns, pure melee. According to OP, this list should be able to defeat any other list with the right amount of tactics. This simply isn't possible, without extraordinary luck.
Using real life here (a flawed idea in and of itself), could a single squad of infantry fight and defeat an armoured brigade with no anti-tank weapons of their own? I doubt it.

My main point to the OP - Yes, you are okay to complain about people bringing lists that might utterly defeat yours. But as much as an obligation they have to accommodate you, you have one to them. If you continue to bring lists that are simply ineffective in the current meta, continue to lose. People do want to help you, but you are being remarkably stubborn. Are you completely sure 40k, with all it's imbalance, is the game for you?
And if you're STILL adamant, play Herald of Ruin's Kill Team expansion. Little vehicles, far more balance, and support for marine as footsloggers.

A strange post.
You are angry/fed up/dismayed at the current state of the game balance?
People advising you to ltp is annoying you?
If I have read it right then I totally agree. The games has massive problems, and there are no amount of tactics or in depth knowledge of the mechanics that can over come this.
And the people that tend to advise ltp usually themselves play one of the more powerful forces or play against people who aren't themselves very good which then skews the argument (ie 'well I always beat my mates Eldar with my Chaos space marines')
The answer isn't a good one, find like minded players, which tends to mean you'll end up playing the same opponent all the time.

Stop trying to treat Space Marines like they're Battle Sisters.

It don't work.

If blob marines is what you think is cool then by all means continue, but as you say there are things that will utterly demolish them. MSU spam in a Gladius is what makes plain marines good, not huge units.

Try to get a team game together maybe? If you bring loads of troops and your team mate brings more specialized stuff your team will have better balance.

I choose to play with lists that aren't very good. I have no desire to improve at the game. It's my opponent's responsibility that I enjoy my hobby. He is obliged to change his army list to better suit mine. My army list, however, is built based on what I want to play with, so that's obviously not changing. If he doesn't change the way he's enjoying his hobby for my benefit, he's a bad guy. I'm not, though. I'm wonderful. I'm entitled to other people making compromises, but I shouldn't have to make any.

 Thud wrote:
I choose to play with lists that aren't very good. I have no desire to improve at the game. It's my opponent's responsibility that I enjoy my hobby. He is obliged to change his army list to better suit mine. My army list, however, is built based on what I want to play with, so that's obviously not changing. If he doesn't change the way he's enjoying his hobby for my benefit, he's a bad guy. I'm not, though. I'm wonderful. I'm entitled to other people making compromises, but I shouldn't have to make any.

I hope that was sarcasm, because I took it that way.

This post is HERESY! *BLAM!*

No but tbh, the only thing fun about 40K is making fun lists and playing people that have fun lists. I play a mishmash of randomness in my guard army. I want to use my leman battle tanks even tho they're the worst option right now? well fk it, I like the model I'ma use them.

PPl who optimise their list as if they're heading to a tournament when in reality you're just gonna play a game for fun at your FLGS are bascially the Kanye West equivalent or 40K.

Yes, but then there's complaining about taking a sub-par list and other people not wanting to nerf their lists because you (generally) won't improve yours.

A compromise needs to be made, or you simply won't get games. And I can assure, more people would, in my experience, bring their own top game against a tougher opponent than nerf it against an opponent who won't compromise.

Incidentally, OP, can I see your list? Your standard one.

There's a difference between a scrub and someone who doesn't list build for power.

Scrubs generally use a pretty optimized list(the ones I'm familiar with run Gladius and WK/Scatbike spam) and generally have lots of opinions on how their list is actually garbage and complainers just want to nerf them unfairly. Say, making threads about how fair Gladius, one of the most powerful lists in the game, is, and how OP Tyranids, one of the worst armies in the game, are.

They don't want to make silly lists with random stuff and have fun. They want to reduce the strength of their opponents list until their army always wins.

the_scotsman wrote:
There's a difference between a scrub and someone who doesn't list build for power.

Scrubs generally use a pretty optimized list(the ones I'm familiar with run Gladius and WK/Scatbike spam) and generally have lots of opinions on how their list is actually garbage and complainers just want to nerf them unfairly. Say, making threads about how fair Gladius, one of the most powerful lists in the game, is, and how OP Tyranids, one of the worst armies in the game, are.

They don't want to make silly lists with random stuff and have fun. They want to reduce the strength of their opponents list until their army always wins.

There's also a huge difference between running a 'for fun' Blob Marines vs. running a 'hopeless' Blob Marines style list.

A 'for fun' list, would still include relevant upgrades, such as making sure you have your anti-tank bases covered by taking Melta and/or Gravguns + matching combi-weapon, Grav Cannons, Melta bombs, ect...
A 'hopeless' list instead stubbornly refuses to take anything - just sticking to at most Flamer + Missile launcher on one or two squads, "because that's what's on the box so it has to work because... 'reasons'."

A 'for fun' list can be used under Templar or Space Wolf rules to gain those larger squads of 15+ bodies and better upgrades. However, a 'for fun' list realises that not every single squad has to be 10+ men, and will also include a small number of support elements to help boost the larger front line units.
A 'hopeless' list just stubbornly refuses to include any kind of supports or built-in synergies. It just throws naked 10-man MEQ squads haphazardly at the enemy, and then whines endlessly when 60-80 Guard Infantry mercilessly guns it down.


Basically, while Blob Marines will never be turely "Competitive", they can still be decent vs. any non-optimised force that eschews the most obnoxious power units, (ie: no Scatbikes or Wraithknight + min Wraithguard and/or Warp Spiders for an Eldar army), but only if you still include the basic tools that ANY force needs to play 40k!

I'm a big fan of negotiating lists with your opponent in advance. It sounds like you've tried and that your opponent may or may not have tried to listen. Maybe just try talking to him again?

Telling people to "get good" or what have you really isn't helpful. The people who want to play competitively will do so. The people who don't want to play competitively will just feel alienated and become more likely to stop playing. To me, what you ideally want to do is just talk to your opponents until you're on the same page. This is one of the reasons I have a banshee-centric craftworld Iybraesil list featuring lots of eldar MCs. Some opponents just have more fun against a toned-down list, and I can have fun with such a list so long as it's still interesting to use.

That said, I do wonder if your opponent is being as malicious as you're implying. It sounds like he plays eldar. Eldar aren't particularly known for lots of pie plates, and what AP2 blasts we have are generally small blasts (meaning they usually hit 2 or 3 models tops). Assuming he wasn't using some sort of titan or superheavy I'm not familiar with, I'm guessing those apocolyptic blasts were coming from his farseers, right? Farseers aren't bad, but I'd be curious to know exactly what your opponent brought. At the risk of sounding like I'm telling you to "get good," I suspect there might be a few minor tricks you could incorporate against such a list to improve your odds against his.

To the OP list building is part of the game...it is part of learning to play, it is part of tactics.

Therefore if you have one list that you are dedicated to and will only play said list, with all due respect if this is the case the LTP argument can be used against you, and I am not that guy that throws that term around, I hate it just as much as everyone else because it is so commonly misused.

I completely understand the state of the game, power creep, formations providing free upgrades and rules etc. But you have to understand the meta and your local meta. You cannot make demands for people to play at your level, and even impose restrictions on your opponents, while not be willing to give an inch. If you would like to play the game with people in your meta....you have to play with the generally accepted terms of that meta. You cant stomp your feet, throw a tantrum, demand everyone does things your way, and then cry when you lose. You are going to lose....even if people follow all your demands, play the lists you want them to play on your terms, this is still a game of chance. No amount of tactics and list building can overcome bad dice/hot dice.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


As an example, I take an army of Crisis Suits for a Tau army, and equip them with nothing: no guns, pure melee. According to OP, this list should be able to defeat any other list with the right amount of tactics. This simply isn't possible, without extraordinary luck.

I dont think anyone ever said that trying to use a unit to do something it was never meant to do was achievable with tactics. That is where list building comes into play. If you only want to take marines with bolters into an 1850 game...you cant be upset when you cant blow up tanks with bolters, and cant down MCs with your bolters.

All things considered this is a hobby, and a game. (and a broken one at that) You would be best off to acknowledge that foremost, and if you are not enjoying yourself then perhaps it is time for you to move on.

Even if people have no desire to care about rules-that's fine too. For those people, I generally run my Vostroyan guard army totally WYSIWYG-power sword/plasma pistol sarges, flamer/heavy bolter blob, mortar and Lascanon HWTs and beefy cc command squads in chimeras with maybe a Leman Russ battle tank or two.

Those games are fun, usually focused on infantry trying to beat each other to death, fluffy and nobody cares about winning or losing.

If you expect people to tune down their lists to better fit your own wants, you need to meet them half-way and tune up your list to meet their wants.

Its that simple.

Two-way street. You don't get to dictate to other people what they should and shouldn't do and then act like the victim. Sounds like your opponent did exactly what you asked of him. Step up, compromise, learn to laugh it off. Its a game.

I'd be more concerned by the attitude and personality of my opponent than whatever collection of models they bring that day. I'll take a stomping with a friendly opponent any day over a hard fought win against an donkey-cave.

I'm intrigued by the fact that the OP is the same one who, not so long ago, was making threads lecturing us all on how GSF wasn't really "that bad" and how Nids were the new secret power army (I'm paraphrasing, but not by much.)

Sounds very much a situation of willing to give out advice, not willing to listen to me

I do get and sympathize what the OP is saying. I also used to be like that. You get advertised that this game is like telling a story and your force has an interesting fight with another where a story evolves with your custom force.

However the reality is that people will treat this as a game before a story. People want to win and will exploit the game, especially if you only pay attention to social media such as Dakka and other devices, and so people will play this game to win rather than its narrative style that GW sells you on.

I do agree with the OP to an extent, however there is nothing wrong with giving advise but the social community has gotten snide and stuck up imo, from observation. Just calling people "scrubs" and so when they are just starting out or trying to evolve is antagonizing and delivers a negative connotation and stigma that you should be punished for being a new player or for trying out something new which I find wrong on basic social levels.

As to the situation proposed by the OP, this does not sound like a min/max issue but a list tailoring issue (if your story is truthful) meaning that your opponent is deliberately designing his list to destroy yours which isn't showing your a bad player but more that player should be avoided since list tailoring has been considered by the community as bad sportsmanship.

If you got sold on the "forge the narrative" element, you were mis-sold.

40K isn't an RPG. It isn't collaborative (or, at least, the format it adopts is not inherently collaborative, extracting a worthwhile gaming experience from the game these days requires collaboration, but that's not the same.)

It is, in its purest form, a test of both players to select a limited range of tools from their toolbox and deploy those tools in the most effective way possible in order to achieve victory.

It can be used for campaigns to tell a story, but there's nothing specific to 40K that makes it better or worse for this purpose than any other tabletop wargame.

There would never be an issue with people playing to win and those playing more casually if the game were better designed, but while there remains significant imbalance across and within factions, people are going to get their asses handed to them in the most unfunny ways possible, and that, at its heart, is why there's a ground swell of people dissatisfied with the game.

GW sells "forge the narrative" because it excuses their terrible design choices and poor balance. By subtly implying that players who try their best to win a game which is essentially only about determining a winner are somehow "doing it wrong" is just pointing the finger at the players when the blame lies solely with them.

Listen, this is a game, there are winners and losers in a game. If you want to win, step your game up, dont whine and taie it like a man when you loose

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm a big fan of negotiating lists with your opponent in advance. It sounds like you've tried and that your opponent may or may not have tried to listen. Maybe just try talking to him again?

Telling people to "get good" or what have you really isn't helpful. The people who want to play competitively will do so. The people who don't want to play competitively will just feel alienated and become more likely to stop playing. To me, what you ideally want to do is just talk to your opponents until you're on the same page. This is one of the reasons I have a banshee-centric craftworld Iybraesil list featuring lots of eldar MCs. Some opponents just have more fun against a toned-down list, and I can have fun with such a list so long as it's still interesting to use.

That said, I do wonder if your opponent is being as malicious as you're implying. It sounds like he plays eldar. Eldar aren't particularly known for lots of pie plates, and what AP2 blasts we have are generally small blasts (meaning they usually hit 2 or 3 models tops). Assuming he wasn't using some sort of titan or superheavy I'm not familiar with, I'm guessing those apocolyptic blasts were coming from his farseers, right? Farseers aren't bad, but I'd be curious to know exactly what your opponent brought. At the risk of sounding like I'm telling you to "get good," I suspect there might be a few minor tricks you could incorporate against such a list to improve your odds against his.

Roughly from memory:

Two 4 man squads of dark reapers (one of which in each squad was an exarch with a tempest launcher).
Seer council: some named farseer (it might have been eldrad), a regular farseer and 3 warlocks. He had at least two guys in that blob who could do Eldritch storm.
2 5 man squads of wraithguard with d-scythles.
4 10 man squads of dire avengers.
1 10 man squad of fire dragons.
A 5 man ranger squad with Illic Nightspear.

We were playing longways. He deployed a dark reaper squad on either side of the table, seer council in the middle. A squad of wraithguard on either side. The rangers infiltrated/scouted into a tower in the middle of the board. He had the firedragons and a couple of squads of dire avengers in ruins on one side of the map, and a squad or two of dire avengers on the other side.

So...yeah. Lots of AP3/AP 2 pie plates. At least one of which was an apocalyptic blast. Every turn.

And he had some formation to give practically everyone on his side BS 5.

That was probably the Aspect Host. You take 3 Squads of Aspect Warriors (from a list), and you get to choose between +1 BS or +1 WS as a formation bonus.

 War Kitten wrote:
That was probably the Aspect Host. You take 3 Squads of Aspect Warriors (from a list), and you get to choose between +1 BS or +1 WS as a formation bonus.

Yes, that sounds right.

Frankly, it would have been a relatively fun, even game...my complaint is his insistence on taking both the dark reaper squads and the seer council.

Given that he was playing vs. blob marines, taking both seemed like overkill to me.

When I said as much (in a perfectly polite, calm tone of voice), he accused me of whining (here, I paraphrase) and blady blady blah.

I know for a fact that the dude owns at least 60 dire avengers and at least 15 rangers. He could have brought something else instead.

Do you own anything more competitive? Could your list be better optimized?

If the answer is yes, then you need to meet half way and up your game too.

Yeah...honestly for Eldar that's a pretty tame list for the most part. No scatbikes, no wraithknights. It looks like he already brought a lot of dire avengers (40 out of the 60 you mentioned...that's more than half...way more than most lists run). What the heck did you bring? Did you try to use any kind of cover or hide behind LoS blocking terrain? Did you spread out properly? Did you use any transports? If you see this put out on the table you at the very least can hold things in reserve so they don't get wiped out if you don't get turn one.

If you get shrekt'd, you wise up and adapt, otherwise tough luck.

Another problem with playing SM is they have always been and still are the standard for troops. Meaning anyone making a TAC list is building with the thought of having to kill MEQs. So AP3 and AP2 weapons are to be expected in every game.

 Azreal13 wrote:
If you got sold on the "forge the narrative" element, you were mis-sold.

Blam.

Current 40k is too broken to work outside of playing in an environment/group whose players share a similar mindset.

As for the OP's complaints though, you asked for no wraithknights and no scatbikes. He met your demands. Eldar are the most broken army in a broken game, simple as that.

Traditio wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm a big fan of negotiating lists with your opponent in advance. It sounds like you've tried and that your opponent may or may not have tried to listen. Maybe just try talking to him again?

Telling people to "get good" or what have you really isn't helpful. The people who want to play competitively will do so. The people who don't want to play competitively will just feel alienated and become more likely to stop playing. To me, what you ideally want to do is just talk to your opponents until you're on the same page. This is one of the reasons I have a banshee-centric craftworld Iybraesil list featuring lots of eldar MCs. Some opponents just have more fun against a toned-down list, and I can have fun with such a list so long as it's still interesting to use.

That said, I do wonder if your opponent is being as malicious as you're implying. It sounds like he plays eldar. Eldar aren't particularly known for lots of pie plates, and what AP2 blasts we have are generally small blasts (meaning they usually hit 2 or 3 models tops). Assuming he wasn't using some sort of titan or superheavy I'm not familiar with, I'm guessing those apocolyptic blasts were coming from his farseers, right? Farseers aren't bad, but I'd be curious to know exactly what your opponent brought. At the risk of sounding like I'm telling you to "get good," I suspect there might be a few minor tricks you could incorporate against such a list to improve your odds against his.

Roughly from memory:

Two 4 man squads of dark reapers (one of which in each squad was an exarch with a tempest launcher).
Seer council: some named farseer (it might have been eldrad), a regular farseer and 3 warlocks. He had at least two guys in that blob who could do Eldritch storm.
2 5 man squads of wraithguard with d-scythles.
4 10 man squads of dire avengers.
1 10 man squad of fire dragons.
A 5 man ranger squad with Illic Nightspear.

We were playing longways. He deployed a dark reaper squad on either side of the table, seer council in the middle. A squad of wraithguard on either side. The rangers infiltrated/scouted into a tower in the middle of the board. He had the firedragons and a couple of squads of dire avengers in ruins on one side of the map, and a squad or two of dire avengers on the other side.

So...yeah. Lots of AP3/AP 2 pie plates. At least one of which was an apocalyptic blast. Every turn.

And he had some formation to give practically everyone on his side BS 5.

Eldritch storm is WC 4 and if in a blob like you said he has like 8 WC, and casting that every turn? I call shenanigans

Eh, the farseer's get re-rolls, harness on a 3+, and can drop it to WC3 with the one relic. Not a hard set up, really.

 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah...honestly for Eldar that's a pretty tame list for the most part. No scatbikes, no wraithknights. It looks like he already brought a lot of dire avengers (40 out of the 60 you mentioned...that's more than half...way more than most lists run). What the heck did you bring? Did you try to use any kind of cover or hide behind LoS blocking terrain? Did you spread out properly? Did you use any transports? If you see this put out on the table you at the very least can hold things in reserve so they don't get wiped out if you don't get turn one.

If you get shrekt'd, you wise up and adapt, otherwise tough luck.

I was playing:

Pedro Kantor
Captain with power fist, stormbolter and artificer armor
Chaplain

4 5 man tactical squads, sarges with bolters and meltabombs
1 5 man tactical squad, sarge with stormbolter, 1 guy with multimelta; free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man tactical squad, 1 guy with plasma cannon
1 5 man assault squad with two flamers in free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man assault squad with one flamer in a free rhino.
1 5 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers
1 6 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers with flakk.
3 5 man sternguard squads
1 5 man honor guard squad; 4 maces and champion with power sword


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cosmicsoybean wrote:Eldritch storm is WC 4 and if in a blob like you said he has like 8 WC, and casting that every turn? I call shenanigans

Well, every turn after the first. First turn, he was out of range. After that, at least 1 eldritch storm went off every turn. He was harnessing on 3+ and I had no psykers on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
If you got sold on the "forge the narrative" element, you were mis-sold.

Blam.

Current 40k is too broken to work outside of playing in an environment/group whose players share a similar mindset.

As for the OP's complaints though, you asked for no wraithknights and no scatbikes. He met your demands. Eldar are the most broken army in a broken game, simple as that.

He met the letter of my request, but not the spirit of my request. That's what annoys me.

Well, your list is kindacweird, how did you get free rhinos

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well, your list is kindacweird, how did you get free rhinos

Battle company.

 Blacksails wrote:
Do you own anything more competitive? Could your list be better optimized?

If the answer is yes, then you need to meet half way and up your game too.

This. At some point you have to up your game.

BTNeophyte wrote:This. At some point you have to up your game.

This just hammers in the points of my OP.

Where is the auxiliary

Traditio wrote:

BTNeophyte wrote:This. At some point you have to up your game.

This just hammers in the points of my OP.

Your original post is literally all "me, me, me."

There's a middle ground you're refusing to acknowledge.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
If you got sold on the "forge the narrative" element, you were mis-sold.

Blam.

Current 40k is too broken to work outside of playing in an environment/group whose players share a similar mindset.

As for the OP's complaints though, you asked for no wraithknights and no scatbikes. He met your demands. Eldar are the most broken army in a broken game, simple as that.

He met the letter of my request, but not the spirit of my request. That's what annoys me.

I was playing:

Pedro Kantor
Captain with power fist, stormbolter and artificer armor
Chaplain

4 5 man tactical squads, sarges with bolters and meltabombs
1 5 man tactical squad, sarge with stormbolter, 1 guy with multimelta; free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man tactical squad, 1 guy with plasma cannon
1 5 man assault squad with two flamers in free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man assault squad with one flamer in a free rhino.
1 5 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers
1 6 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers with flakk.
3 5 man sternguard squads
1 5 man honor guard squad; 4 maces and champion with power sword

Its an okish list but overall its very static. Its static/Ds Marines which under 7th ed rules are.....suboptimal.
You were playing Eldar (or variants?). I would assume a very tough matchup either way - even if you OP is a bit of a "meany".
Look - you can play your list over and over or adapt sightly (even I see glaring flaws).

Kinda agree with above - chat, adapt, evolve or lose

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Where is the auxiliary

1st Company - Sternguard X 3

After reading through.... It appears you are grumpy because you lost, and grumpy because one person didn't make a more "fun funsies" list. You then continue to say that it's all his fault, and you play not part in your own not enjoying the game.

You then state that anyone trying to tell you that you may need to also do something, and not entirely rely on the other person to dumb down his list for you, is in fact reinforcing your first point. You are also acting like your post has air tight logic and absolutely correct.

In short, you're just looking for people to validate you and telling the rest that they're terrible people. I don't understand why you think this is a productive topic or that you're going to accomplish anything productive in this thread.

On one hand, I can sort of - sort of - commiserate with the OP, as a marine player using second hand models, with a very restricted budget to buy new stuff with.

But really, I can't agree much. I used to play Eldar myself, and that is a pretty tame list. For an Eldar list to come down to the SAME level as that terrible Marines list, they'd have to be nothing but rangers and banshees on foot. Even Wraithlords, a bad unit, would give that marine list trouble.

You're using Gladius. You really need to ACTUALLY make use of the ability to take free transports - put every squad in a transport, and make a good number of them Razorbacks with Assault Cannons or Lascannons. Otherwise, why use Gladius at all, instead of say, two CADs?

And if you're not going to maximize the transports, why are you avoiding using Special or Heavy weapons? Where are your Grav-Guns, your Plasma Guns, your Meltaguns?

Codex Space Marines don't do 'blob'. They can't join units into bigger ones like Guard can, and they aren't great in combat like Berserkers are.

And I still don't get how that Eldar list has 'lots of pie plates'. Outside of the psychic powers, the Reapers' blasts are small and AP4, and the D-Scythes are flamer templates.

Traditio wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah...honestly for Eldar that's a pretty tame list for the most part. No scatbikes, no wraithknights. It looks like he already brought a lot of dire avengers (40 out of the 60 you mentioned...that's more than half...way more than most lists run). What the heck did you bring? Did you try to use any kind of cover or hide behind LoS blocking terrain? Did you spread out properly? Did you use any transports? If you see this put out on the table you at the very least can hold things in reserve so they don't get wiped out if you don't get turn one.

If you get shrekt'd, you wise up and adapt, otherwise tough luck.

I was playing:

Pedro Kantor
Captain with power fist, stormbolter and artificer armor
Chaplain

4 5 man tactical squads, sarges with bolters and meltabombs
1 5 man tactical squad, sarge with stormbolter, 1 guy with multimelta; free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man tactical squad, 1 guy with plasma cannon
1 5 man assault squad with two flamers in free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man assault squad with one flamer in a free rhino.
1 5 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers
1 6 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers with flakk.
3 5 man sternguard squads
1 5 man honor guard squad; 4 maces and champion with power sword


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cosmicsoybean wrote:Eldritch storm is WC 4 and if in a blob like you said he has like 8 WC, and casting that every turn? I call shenanigans

Well, every turn after the first. First turn, he was out of range. After that, at least 1 eldritch storm went off every turn. He was harnessing on 3+ and I had no psykers on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
If you got sold on the "forge the narrative" element, you were mis-sold.

Blam.

Current 40k is too broken to work outside of playing in an environment/group whose players share a similar mindset.

As for the OP's complaints though, you asked for no wraithknights and no scatbikes. He met your demands. Eldar are the most broken army in a broken game, simple as that.

He met the letter of my request, but not the spirit of my request. That's what annoys me.

Your taking a horrible list with a lot of sub par options and little synergy. Maybe your opponent can tone the list down a bit but at some point bad options are just that bad options. For instance why bother with a battle company if most of your squads don't have a transport.

Terminal wrote:
On one hand, I can sort of - sort of - commiserate with the OP, as a marine player using second hand models, with a very restricted budget to buy new stuff with.

That's basically my situation.

But really, I can't agree much. I used to play Eldar myself, and that is a pretty tame list. For an Eldar list to come down to the SAME level as that terrible Marines list, they'd have to be nothing but rangers and banshees on foot. Even Wraithlords, a bad unit, would give that marine list trouble.

I disagree. My complaint specifically was with the use of both the reapers and the seer council.

You're using Gladius. You really need to ACTUALLY make use of the ability to take free transports - put every squad in a transport, and make a good number of them Razorbacks with Assault Cannons or Lascannons.

I don't actually have that many transports.

Otherwise, why use Gladius at all, instead of say, two CADs?

To make use of the transports that I do have for free, in addition to getting to use combat doctrines.

And I still don't get how that Eldar list has 'lots of pie plates'. Outside of the psychic powers, the Reapers' blasts are small and AP4, and the D-Scythes are flamer templates.

His reaper exarchs were able to fire 3 pie plates with their tempest launchers every turn. And you are mistaken: the reaper blasts are all AP 3.

If you can't use transports for every squad why are you bothering to use a Gladius? You could take a less restricted list instead.

pm713 wrote:
If you can't use transports for every squad why are you bothering to use a Gladius? You could take a less restricted list instead.

It basically allows me to use all of the models that I actually own, with the exception of a few models, at an 1850 points level.

At any rate, the simple fact is that I have what I have, and my friend has what he has. He has the option to take weaker units (he has a rather extensive inventory of eldar units; he easily could use an avatar of khaine, wraithlords, wave serpents, etc.) and basically play at my power level. To significantly increase my power level would be a rather extensive monetary investment on my part.

That's basically what it comes down to.

And I asked him why he insisted on using both the seer council and the reapers. "Would you have lost?" "No, but it would have made things more difficult."

That annoys me. Again, refer to the OP.

Sounds like you just want to win without having to change anything about your list.

Sometimes you just get a rough match up and as that list is mostly just bolters and missile launchers you'll probably meet the rock to your scissors quite a lot. An Avatar of Khaine, Wraithlords and Wave Serpent would be hard for you to deal with as well I would think. Sadly this game costs money if you want to be able to diversify your list and increase your chances of winning, that's just how it is. You could try talking with him again when you aren't having a battle and explaining your situation and what you want out of the game but if your desires are too far apart and you can't meet each other half way then try playing other people.

 Blacksails wrote:
Sounds like you just want to win without having to change anything about your list.

Not what I said. Not what I even halfway implied.

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Sounds like you just want to win without having to change anything about your list.

Not what I said. Not what I even halfway implied.

Then why do you not try to implement some of the suggestions that people have said towards making your list more optimal? You don't even have to necessarily buy new things right off the bat, just proxy whatever is needed and let your opponent or friend know beforehand and ask if its alright. It really doesn't take that much effort to try and work around sub-optimal lists, even with monetary/model limitations as long as you communicate with your opponent and meet them halfway.

Grimskul wrote:Then why do you not try to implement some of the suggestions that people have said towards making your list more optimal? You don't even have to necessarily buy new things right off the bat, just proxy whatever is needed and let your opponent or friend know beforehand and ask if its alright. It really doesn't take that much effort to try and work around sub-optimal lists, even with monetary/model limitations as long as you communicate with your opponent and meet them halfway.

You are misunderstanding my answer to black sails. I don't expect to win (in effect, to obtain victories more than half the time or easily) without changing my list, independently of player skill, tactics, positioning, etc.

With or without changing my list, that's simply not the desideratum for me.

It's not the fact that I lost that annoys me. It's the fact that he specifically spammed marine killing pie plates, knowing in advance what I was bringing to the table, and in spite of being able to obtain victory without the crutch.

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Sounds like you just want to win without having to change anything about your list.

Not what I said. Not what I even halfway implied.

You may not think you're implying it, but you haven't indicated any willingness to adjust your own list to be more competitive.

In other words, you need to compromise. If you're dictating to your opponent what they can and can't bring, expect your opponent to be able to do the same to you.

 Blacksails wrote:
You may not think you're implying it, but you haven't indicated any willingness to adjust your own list to be more competitive.

The dichotomy that you are implicitly putting into play with this kind of answer only presupposes the "anti-scrub" mentality with which I take issue in the OP.

So basically you wanted to take a list with zero capabilities of dealing with basically anything, completely inflight, and your opponent was nice enough to not only take no power units but also no tanks AT ALL, as well as pretty much all the worst units in his codex...

And you still lost, despite all you needing to do to win would be to sit in ruins, shoot the Wraithguard and GTG in ruins any time an eldar itch storm hit. Then, after you lost, you whined at your opponent because he brought stuff that could hurt your stuff instead of 100% units you counter.

Why are you posting this online? That's embarrassing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'd like to point out your list is the definition of min-maxed.

Max: bolters

Min: everything else

Your friends list is a balanced TAC list, with a variety of units of multiple ranges, anti tank units, psychic support, close combat and anti infantry.

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You may not think you're implying it, but you haven't indicated any willingness to adjust your own list to be more competitive.

The dichotomy that you are implicitly putting into play with this kind of answer only presupposes the "anti-scrub" mentality with which I take issue in the OP.

And? So? Therefore?

You had an issue, I'm supplying a solution. If you happen to think it falls under some mentality you take issue with, then its up to you to make peace with that or continue to lose with sub-optimal lists. You simply can't dictate to others what they can and can't play, and as gakky as it is, sometimes the solution is to not play that person if a compromise can't be reached. No one is right or wrong in that scenario either.

the_scotsman wrote:
So basically you wanted to take a list with zero capabilities of dealing with basically anything, completely inflight, and your opponent was nice enough to not only take no power units but also no tanks AT ALL, as well as pretty much all the worst units in his codex...

Wraithguard, fire dragons and dark reapers are not the worst units in the Eldar codex.

Neither are dire avengers. In fact, dire avengers are on par with, if not superior in certain ways to, tactical marines with bolters.

And you still lost, despite all you needing to do to win would be to sit in ruins, shoot the Wraithguard and GTG in ruins any time an eldar itch storm hit. Then, after you lost, you whined at your opponent because he brought stuff that could hurt your stuff instead of 100% units you counter.

I'm pretty sure that dire avengers, wraithguard, rangers, etc. can hurt marines.

The fact that you are even trying to present things in this manner only presupposes the elitist, anti-scrub mentality with which I take issue in the OP.

Also, I'd like to point out your list is the definition of min-maxed.

Max: bolters

Min: everything else

That's not what "min-max" means.

1) Illic, Rangers, Banshees, Wraithblades, Wraithlords, Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are absolutely amount the worst units in the Eldar codex.

2) Min-Maxing quite literally means minimizing one thing in a game to take the maximum amount of another thing. It CAN mean minimizing the stuff that's not the best to take the max amount of the best stuff (eg spamming 2 min sized Scatbike squads and 1 warlock for the max number of WKs) but it can absolutely mean maximizing something else, and that's absolutely what you've done. What would you have done if your opponent had tanks? Nothing. What would you have done if he had MCs? Nothing. Your oponent has an answer to all those things because he built a balanced, non tailored TAC list, and with the lists spelled out you really haven't got anything to hide behind.

3) He did not "spam pie plates." His list has ONE pie plate-the Eldrich storm...which is a power he rolled for. He took a psychic unit, rolled powers, then used the best power he had rolled against his opponent. That's what you do with psykers. Beyond that he had a few AP2 flamer templates, a couple S4 ap3 small blasts, and some meltas.

the_scotsman wrote:
1) Illic, Rangers, Banshees, Wraithblades, Wraithlords, Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are absolutely amount the worst units in the Eldar codex.

What's so bad about dark reapers?

What would you have done if your opponent had tanks? Nothing.

Use my devastator squads, meltabombs, multimelta and Pedro/Chaplain/Captain/Honor Guard unit.

What would you have done if he had MCs?

Use hellfire sternguard rounds, meltabombs, devastator squads, plasma cannon, multimelta and, depending on the MC, the Pedro squad.

3) He did not "spam pie plates." His list has ONE pie plate-the Eldrich storm...which is a power he rolled for. He took a psychic unit, rolled powers, then used the best power he had rolled against his opponent. That's what you do with psykers. Beyond that he had a few AP2 flamer templates, a couple S4 ap3 small blasts, and some meltas.

Each tempest launcher was firing 3 S5, AP 3 small blasts per round, so long as units were in range.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
If you can't use transports for every squad why are you bothering to use a Gladius? You could take a less restricted list instead.

It basically allows me to use all of the models that I actually own, with the exception of a few models, at an 1850 points level.

To significantly increase my power level would be a rather extensive monetary investment on my part.

1) You should try playing a lower point game.

2) Your opponent does not want to lower the power level of his army further, which leaves you with a few options options:

A) increase the power level of your army: this will require spending money, it's a reality of 40k. You can also either proxy or ask your opponent to borrow models

B) not play your opponent

C) accept that you have horrible matchups based on what you own and keep playing

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
If you can't use transports for every squad why are you bothering to use a Gladius? You could take a less restricted list instead.

It basically allows me to use all of the models that I actually own, with the exception of a few models, at an 1850 points level.

At any rate, the simple fact is that I have what I have, and my friend has what he has. He has the option to take weaker units (he has a rather extensive inventory of eldar units; he easily could use an avatar of khaine, wraithlords, wave serpents, etc.) and basically play at my power level. To significantly increase my power level would be a rather extensive monetary investment on my part.

That's basically what it comes down to.

And I asked him why he insisted on using both the seer council and the reapers. "Would you have lost?" "No, but it would have made things more difficult."

That annoys me. Again, refer to the OP.

If you are friends and playing friendly lists...you could proxy some special weapons or rhinos for razorbacks to try and be a tougher opponent.

Also why should your friend have to suffer and play with limited models because you do not have as much stuff as he does? Play a smaller point level maybe? Proxy some of your units....Try a CAD with skyhammer? There is plenty you can do with the models you have and a little creativity. I easily have over 6k points and my friends and I proxy things all the time to get a feel for different units, to try something new, play test things before we purchase them etc.

You have been repeatedly confronted by post after post and author after author accusing you of refusing to acknowledge the middle ground, and to compromise, and you still 3 pages into your thread have yet to take any blame after that rant. This will be my final post trying to shed light onto the topic you seem to clearly not grasp....I advise other people to stop responding as well. At this point it is as if arguing with a wall.

Unless the rules have changed on me tempest launchers are S4, AP3 Heavy 2. Those should cause a whopping 2 kills a shot if you spaced your guys correctly. You, by contrast, had 8 missile launchers that could one shot his Wraithguard-were you spamming S8 AP3 then? By your definition of spamming (>1 apparently) you were.

Ahhh, yes, of course. You weren't min-maxed at all, you had plenty of anti tank! Why, those missile launchers could handle an entire standard Eldar tank in only two full rounds of shooting given no casualties.

That is a gak list. Do you seriously only have 3 Rhinos and just flamers for special weapons?! Just missile launchers for heavies? You must not have bought a Marine box in 15 years. I'm tempted to mail you a spare plasma gun or 2...

the_scotsman wrote:
Unless the rules have changed on me tempest launchers are S4, AP3 Heavy 2. Those should cause a whopping 2 kills a shot if you spaced your guys correctly. You, by contrast, had 8 missile launchers that could one shot his Wraithguard-were you spamming S8 AP3 then? By your definition of spamming (>1 apparently) you were.

I was in error. Tempest launchers are S4, Heavy 2, AP 3. However, he had some bonus or upgrade which allowed his exarchs to fire an additional shot. So instead of heavy 3, it was, in fact, heavy 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BTNeophyte wrote:1) You should try playing a lower point game.

2) Your opponent does not want to lower the power level of his army further, which leaves you with a few options options:

A) increase the power level of your army: this will require spending money, it's a reality of 40k. You can also either proxy or ask your opponent to borrow models

B) not play your opponent

C) accept that you have horrible matchups based on what you own and keep playing

Ultimately, I agree with the basic gist of this, but I acknowledge as much in the OP.

What annoys me is that in conceding to the letter of my request, but not to the spirit of my request, my opponent basically wasted my time. What he should have said is: "Though I have the models to create a list which is roughly equivalent in power level to yours, I really don't feel like doing so." That would have been a perfectly acceptable answer and would have saved me the tediousness.

What you should have done; is written his list for him. That seems to be the only situation you would have been satisfied with.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Listen, this is a game, there are winners and losers in a game. If you want to win, step your game up, dont whine and taie it like a man when you loose

While true, we should remember what a certain old poster once said. "The objective of the game is to win. The purpose of the game is to have fun. The two should not be confused."

Which means you should try to find opponents that enjoy the game in the same way you do, not try to force some random guy to down/upgrade his army or game for you.

Byt that right, the opponet should make this list.
Listen, you list kinda sucks, im sorry. but who you gave rhinos too haphhazard, everyone should be i rhinos or drop pods. quite frankly, Imperial fists work better with them
Second, Devs with ML is kinda not good, Try Grav Cannons. like, their really good, even coming down on droppod
Third, Your Aux is good, but sternguard just suck without the transports. Droppods are good because they benifit from the formations -2 debuff.

He adhered to the letter and not the spirit of your request because he have you the benefit of the doubt that you were just asking him to tone down his list (I.e., take a subpar TAC list, which is what he did) and not asking him to min-max his own list such that yours could beat him and you wouldn't have hurt feelings.

What you experienced was not list tailoring. I know list tailoring-in my own group, there's a guy who if you play Orks against him will bring 15 flamers and proxy 5 Leman Russ punishers, and if you play tanks against him every flamer magically becomes a melta and each Russ a Vanquisher.

Your buddy's list was not that. Because it was a TAC list, and MEQ are one of the things you plan for, he included 2 anti-MEQ guns and rolled a good psychic power. He also included dedicated anti tank, short ranged light infantry, and anti-MC despite knowing you had none of those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your opponent basically wasted your time only if your attitude is that a game you can not win is a waste of your time (while at the same time claiming you just want to play for fun.) this is the hypocrisy at the root of the scrub mentality and is precisely why it is reviled-no elitism needed.

 Thud wrote:
I choose to play with lists that aren't very good. I have no desire to improve at the game. It's my opponent's responsibility that I enjoy my hobby. He is obliged to change his army list to better suit mine. My army list, however, is built based on what I want to play with, so that's obviously not changing. If he doesn't change the way he's enjoying his hobby for my benefit, he's a bad guy. I'm not, though. I'm wonderful. I'm entitled to other people making compromises, but I shouldn't have to make any.

Thud gets it exactly.

Keep going after those windmills, Traditio!

Traditio wrote:

I was playing:

Pedro Kantor
Captain with power fist, stormbolter and artificer armor
Chaplain

4 5 man tactical squads, sarges with bolters and meltabombs
1 5 man tactical squad, sarge with stormbolter, 1 guy with multimelta; free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man tactical squad, 1 guy with plasma cannon
1 5 man assault squad with two flamers in free rhino with dozer blades
1 5 man assault squad with one flamer in a free rhino.
1 5 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers
1 6 man devastator squad with 4 missile launchers with flakk.
3 5 man sternguard squads
1 5 man honor guard squad; 4 maces and champion with power sword

A few things:
1) Your list needs to change. Currently, it's completely dysfunctional and has almost 0 synergies... Why is your dedicated close combat squad only 5 guys & running? Where are your special weapons? Why use a GSF when you can't make proper use of it's greatest strength?
I could go on, and on...

While it's harder to play 40k on a tight budget, it's readily doable - especially with Marines!
First lesson; Never buy Rhinos!!! The Razorback kit is only a couple bucks more, and is the exact same kit + 1 additional sprue. Don't glue the top plate in place - instead just glue the two halves of the rhino top hatch together, and now you can swap your vehicle between whatever floats your boat.
Same deal when buying the likes of a Whirlwind and/or Predator kit. Don't glue the top plate in place, nor the side sponsons in the case of a Predator. Now when/if you don't want to bring that tank, your have another Rhino/Razorback at your disposal.

For special weapons, just ask around your local Imperial players. Anyone who's bought even a couple basic Marine kits almost certainly has a small mountain of unused Special weapons laying around. Adding a Plasma or Meltagun to each of those naked Bolter squads would alone be a significant boost!
Granted Heavy weapons are much more difficult to come by, but at worst, you can save up things like your spare change over the course of a month or two and invest in a single Devastator Squad box. That's plenty of Heavy weapons, including a pair of the game's best Grav cannons.

Librarians are easily converted from basic Marines... Take a spare shoulder pad, use a black fine point marker to outline the basic shape of the psychic hood, then cut/file it down. File down the raised edges of the pad, then glue in place along the back collar of the armour. Add a proper fancy-looking sword/staff/axe, and extra bling to the Marine and boom - super cheap Librarian!
Do this 3 times and you can run a Conclave formation alongside your Battle Company.


2) Play smaller games. If you can't do much more than bring a nearly naked min-sized army to an 1850pts game, then stop playing 1850pts games!

Yes it may suck at first having to drop a few squads, but playing 1000pts or 1500pts means that you can (for once) properly kit out your squads with actual support, instead of just running handfuls of bolter chumpies across the table and hoping for a miracle.
Once you can add a few more Razorbacks/Drop Pods and flesh out your Special weapons entirely, then you can go back to playing the full GSF.


3) Play Mealstrom missions. Marines in general are not a good army for playing nothing but kill points/tabling opponents. If that's all your playing, then STOP!
Play missions, play to the mission objectives. That's what Marines are amazing at. Yes you're still going to lose handfuls of stuff, but that's half the fun of the game, is seeing crap get blown to hell and back!
Point is, with proper missions, Marines will win more than they could ever hope to in mindless 'kill everything' style snorefests.

the_scotsman wrote:
Your opponent basically wasted your time only if your attitude is that a game you can not win is a waste of your time (while at the same time claiming you just want to play for fun.) this is the hypocrisy at the root of the scrub mentality and is precisely why it is reviled-no elitism needed.

That's pretty much true by definition. An unwinnable game by definition is an exercise in futility. The spirit of the request was: "Bring a list which has roughly an equal chance of beating mine, independently of player skill, terrain, deployment positions, etc."

Granted, there is no obligation to do so.

Nonetheless, as for the general "attitude" of people who think that such a request is silly in principle, again, refer to the OP.

Traditio wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Your opponent basically wasted your time only if your attitude is that a game you can not win is a waste of your time (while at the same time claiming you just want to play for fun.) this is the hypocrisy at the root of the scrub mentality and is precisely why it is reviled-no elitism needed.

That's pretty much true by definition. An unwinnable game by definition is an exercise in futility. The spirit of the request was: "Bring a list which has roughly an equal chance of beating mine, independently of player skill, terrain, deployment positions, etc."

Which you didn't ask. You asked them to not bring certain units, how could they know what your list would be and your (frankly suicidal) tactic?
Your opponent is not at any fault for bringing units which they felt they would be allowed to.

If I was your opponent, I'd be rather annoyed at the fact that nothing they do is appropriate to you! Would you rather choose their list for them? Would you dictate to them what they do? Because it honestly feels like that what you're trying to do here.

Granted, there is no obligation to do so.

Nonetheless, as for the general "attitude" of people who think that such a request is silly in principle, again, refer to the OP.

The request isn't silly, it's the demanding of such a request with no intention of altering your own playstyle. You're asking everyone else except you to change, which frankly doesn't lend well to enjoyable play.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Which you didn't ask. You asked them to not bring certain units, how could they know what your list would be and your (frankly suicidal) tactic?
Your opponent is not at any fault for bringing units which they felt they would be allowed to.

It just occurs to me that I've provided very little information about my opponent. The way that my thread probably sounds is that I have was making this request to a random stranger.

That would just be silly.

This is a friend of mine whom I've played before and who has a pretty decent knowledge of what I'm using.

And it still sounds like you need to be abundantly clear on what you expect of him (which is still treading a fine line of just telling him exactly what to bring by the sounds of it) and that you need to improve your own list too.

You seriously can't expect him to do all the work by bringing his list down sufficiently if you're not going to do any of the work to bring your list up.

I play rock. I asked my opponent to play scissors. He took paper. That bastard.

 FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
I play rock. I asked my opponent to play scissors. He took paper. That bastard.

It's more like I took rock, and in turn, asked my opponent also to take rock, and then to have a re-match of rock-paper-scissors at the moment of deployment.

There is no sense in which I asked my opponent to "let me win," as some of you seem to be implying. Making a game winnable is not the same thing as asking to be allowed to win.

It's one thing to request that a staircase by carved into a mountain. It's quite another thing to request that someone carry you up said staircase.

Looking at things you definitely had more chance to win than you make out.

Experiment 626 wrote:A few things:
1) Your list needs to change. Currently, it's completely dysfunctional and has almost 0 synergies... Why is your dedicated close combat squad only 5 guys & running? Where are your special weapons? Why use a GSF when you can't make proper use of it's greatest strength?
I could go on, and on...

I broadly agree with this. What I've been doing is grouping Pedro, the chaplain, the captain and the honor guard together and making them embark a rhino on turn 1.

I don't think it's been working.

What I think I'll do instead is:

1. Add special/heavy weapons to the 4 "naked" tac squads.

I've been having a fair amount of success with the plasma cannon squad, and the multimelta hasn't been a complete waste. I'm thinking more plasma and melta.

2. Convert the honor guard back into base sternguard.

3. Drop Pedro (he's just not worth the points).

4. Gradually add rhinos to my list over time.

5. Drop the stormbolters.

6. Upgrade the second devastator squad to use flakk missiles also.

Steps in the right direction?

Like others have said, you need to meet him half way. That Eldar list is weak but the SM list is even weaker. I think I could take an army full of Eldar Rangers and beat that.

Also, play with more terrain. AP3 isn't very scary to marines in a ruin or out of LoS.

pm713 wrote:
Looking at things you definitely had more chance to win than you make out.

Yes, I think I definitely did. My deployment was terrible, and I didn't place terrain particularly well. What I should have done is deploy everything to my left, his right, where his forces were relatively weak.

What I ended up doing was putting most of my forces to his right, where his forces were strong, except for a lone tac squad in the left to hold an objective and a missile launcher dev squad right next to them...which promptly got pie-plated by reapers.

Not to mention that my target prioritization was sub-optimal.

I definitely could have played better and stood a chance.

Ultimately, however, that's not what provoked this thread. What provoked this thread was that I got accused of whining and received a long lecture simply for trying to bring my opponent to admit that the eldritch storms were overkill.

Had he admitted that the seer council was overkill, I would not have made this thread.

Had he brought an avatar of khaine or a wraithlord instead of the seer council, I would probably not have made this thread, even had I gotten tabled.

I fail to see the issue with using Eldritch Storms. He rolled power that was good and used it. Based on what you said it sounds like your deployment mistake made the situation even worse.
Honestly looking at the things you've said it doesn't sound like the opponent did anything wrong. He did as you asked and brought a weaker list and played you like a normal opponent. If you wanted special treatment you should ask for it.

pm713 wrote:
I fail to see the issue with using Eldritch Storms.

Against blob marines, combined with the 6 blasts from the reapers, it was simply overkill. That's my complaint.

He could have won the game without the seer council, albeit with greater difficulty on his part.

Against blob armies, AP2 apocalyptic blasts are just far too effective...a forteriori because I wasn't using psykers myself.

So he should not play to his full ability? He should deliberately let you win? Should he let you make lists for him?

They'd be a lot less effective if you used cover and spread out.....

By the way what units were the Farseers in?

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

He should deliberately let you win?

Supra. The dichotomy that you are implicitly assuming presupposes the anti-scrub mentality against which I protest in the OP.

Should he let you make lists for him?

My criticism is largely negative: the seer council was unnecessary and could have been replaced with something else which isn't inordinately good against blobs of infantry.

Examples: More dire avengers, an avatar of khaine, a wraithlord, etc.

They'd be a lot less effective if you used cover and spread out.....

It's an apocalyptic blast. Do you know how big those are?

By the way what units were the Farseers in?

Eldrad, farseer and 3 or 4 warlocks constituted a single seer council unit.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I fail to see the issue with using Eldritch Storms.

Against blob marines, combined with the 6 blasts from the reapers, it was simply overkill. That's my complaint.

He could have won the game without the seer council, albeit with greater difficulty on his part.

Against blob armies, AP2 apocalyptic blasts are just far too effective...a forteriori because I wasn't using psykers myself.

Thus, not his fault. You took a blob, you suffered. Next time, he might not roll Eldritch Storm. It's not guarenteed, you happened to get a bad deal due to his good roll.

It really feels like you want to dictate his list to him, and that's not okay. You already imposed one restriction, and he adapted. Would you be happy if your marines ALWAYS got their saves and just removed AP3 and 2 from the game? I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to find ways to take your side here.

So he should write bad lists solely to accommodate you then. Got it. He asked the kind of list you asked him to. Now it's your turn to change and use different units.

There is no guarantee the Council will be good against blobs. If he rolls different powers it becomes terrible against blobs but great at buffing.

Yes. I also know the table is a lot bigger than the blast is.

That unit should not have survived very long unless he got very good rolls with his saves. So it again sounds like the problem came from you making a mistake. Even if they don't die in a turn you still weaken them by reducing warp charges.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Thus, not his fault. You took a blob, you suffered. Next time, he might not roll Eldritch Storm. It's not guarenteed, you happened to get a bad deal due to his good roll.

His strategy relied on getting enough rolls on the psyker table to get Eldritch storm at least once. He specifically took the seer council for psyker shenanigans.

Which, again, is fine.

But not what I want to play against.

He's perfectly free not to play against me, of course, and that's fine too.

You already imposed one restriction, and he adapted.

Spirit vs. Letter

Would you be happy if your marines ALWAYS got their saves and just removed AP3 and 2 from the game? I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to find ways to take your side here.

Absolutely not. I use AP 3 and AP 2 myself. That said, I do think it's reasonable to say: "Y'know what? We aren't playing an apocalypse game. No apocalyptic AP2 blasts."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
So he should write bad lists solely to accommodate you then.

"Bad" is a relative term when we are talking about lists in warhammer 40k.

That unit should not have survived very long unless he got very good rolls with his saves. So it again sounds like the problem came from you making a mistake. Even if they don't die in a turn you still weaken them by reducing warp charges.

He did not. At no point in the game, as far as I remember, did he get anything higher than a 4+ rerollable invuln on the seer council, and they stayed close to the middle of the table. Somehow, this just didn't "click" for me. Again, I'm not saying that my tactics were great.

Did you explicitly say what you meant? Saying no scatbikes or wraithknights doesn't really imply no Seer Councils or Reapers or most things in the codex for that matter.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

What defines shenanigans as anything but your opinion? Why is your word the one that determines shenanigans?
You're handicapping anything you don't like, without trying to adapt yourself.
List building is a part of tactics too, one that your opponent is willing to employ. By asking them to not bring certain units, you are stopping them playing at full potential. This is okay, to some extent. IMHO, you take it too far.

But hey, my opinion = worthless.

Should he let you make lists for him?

My criticism is largely negative: the seer council was unnecessary and could have been replaced with something else which isn't inordinately good against blobs of infantry.

Examples: More dire avengers, an avatar of khaine, a wraithlord, etc.

Why unnecessary? He is allowed to take what you don't force him not to. His choices at list making are just as valid as yours.
And don't forget, you chose to take blobs of infantry, which I could deem unnecessary when you could have taken tanks.

They'd be a lot less effective if you used cover and spread out.....

It's an apocalyptic blast. Do you know how big those are?

Spreading out is always valid, especially for the Dark Reapers too.

EDIT - You seem to say Spirit vs Word a lot. Enlighten me, how should your opponent have known that "No wraithknights and scatbikes" meant "absolutely nothing I deem as shenanigans without any other context"?

He did as you asked, is that not enough?

pm713 wrote:
Did you explicitly say what you meant? Saying no scatbikes or wraithknights doesn't really imply no Seer Councils or Reapers or most things in the codex for that matter.

Again, letter vs. spirit.

Somehow, this objection strike me as autistic at best, intentionally and maliciously disingenuous at worst. Kind of like a child holding his finger an inch away from his sibling: "I'm not touching you!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

What defines shenanigans as anything but your opinion? Why is your word the one that determines shenanigans?

Silly question. You know it when you see it. If it makes you laugh and your opponent roll his eyes, it's shenanigans. Rerollable 2+ invuln saves come to mind.

You're handicapping anything you don't like, without trying to adapt yourself.
List building is a part of tactics too, one that your opponent is willing to employ. By asking them to not bring certain units, you are stopping them playing at full potential. This is okay, to some extent. IMHO, you take it too far.

But hey, my opinion = worthless.

As I said, see the OP.

Stop holding other people responsible for your poor communication.

Stop blaming somebody else for the fact they had a different idea to what constituted "fair" than yours.

Stop expecting other people to change to accommodate you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe start playing a game where this sort of gak doesn't happen every fething game?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Stop holding other people responsible for your poor communication.

Stop blaming somebody else for the fact they had a different idea to what constituted "fair" than yours.

Stop expecting other people to change to accommodate you.

See the OP.

Again, ultimately, it's not the simple fact that he brought the units that provoked the thread. What provoked the thread is the attitude.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Did you explicitly say what you meant? Saying no scatbikes or wraithknights doesn't really imply no Seer Councils or Reapers or most things in the codex for that matter.

Again, letter vs. spirit.

Somehow, this objection strike me as autistic at best, intentionally and maliciously disingenuous at worst. Kind of like a child holding his finger an inch away from his sibling: "I'm not touching you!"

Letter vs spirit, returning again.
Your opponent is not a child (or maybe they are. I wouldn't know :shrug: ). They thought what they were doing was right, as you set it down.

To put it another way, for example, I am told that person X doesn't like strawberry ice cream. When I get person X a chocolate ice cream, they then tell me that they don't like chocolate either, and wanted raspberry. How could I have know what they wanted if they didn't tell me?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

What defines shenanigans as anything but your opinion? Why is your word the one that determines shenanigans?
You're handicapping anything you don't like, without trying to adapt yourself.
List building is a part of tactics too, one that your opponent is willing to employ. By asking them to not bring certain units, you are stopping them playing at full potential. This is okay, to some extent. IMHO, you take it too far.

But hey, my opinion = worthless.

As I said, see the OP.

The OP where you come across as rather controlling and passive-aggressive because your opponent can't read your mind and figure out what you really want without communicating to him? When/if you next play him, PLEASE be completely clear about what you want, and what is okay with you to play.

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Stop holding other people responsible for your poor communication.

Stop blaming somebody else for the fact they had a different idea to what constituted "fair" than yours.

Stop expecting other people to change to accommodate you.

See the OP.

Again, ultimately, it's not the simple fact that he brought the units that provoked the thread. What provoked the thread is the attitude.

What was the attitude? Tell us what you said and tell us what they said.

pm713 wrote:

What was the attitude? Tell us what you said and tell us what they said.

I'm sure the response will be totally unbiased though.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Letter vs spirit, returning again.
Your opponent is not a child (or maybe they are. I wouldn't know :shrug: ). They thought what they were doing was right, as you set it down.

To put it another way, for example, I am told that person X doesn't like strawberry ice cream. When I get person X a chocolate ice cream, they then tell me that they don't like chocolate either, and wanted raspberry. How could I have know what they wanted if they didn't tell me?

This is why I am saying that this response strikes me either as autistic or disingenuous.

Either:

A. The objector can't read sub-texts/implications.
B. The objector can read sub-texts/implications, but simply chooses to ignore them.

A reasonable person would ask himself: "Why doesn't this person want me to use wraithknights or bikes? Oh, well, clearly, because his list can't really deal with them. He doesn't have the mobility to deal with bikes, and he doesn't really have the firepower to deal with a wraithknight. Perhaps I could use a seer council...well, reasoning analogously..."

[My apologies for bringing in religion, but the objector essentially reads my words like a protestant reads the Bible: i.e., a-contextually and over-literally (when it suits them, at any rate). ]

There are only two ways that I can understand the objector:

Autistically: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...he specifically doesn't like those units, right?
Maliciously: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...you know what else would completely wreck his list?

The OP where you come across as rather controlling and passive-aggressive because your opponent can't read your mind and figure out what you really want without communicating to him? When/if you next play him, PLEASE be completely clear about what you want, and what is okay with you to play.

I basically did. When he brought up the possibility of using a seer council, I believe my words were something to the effect of: "Oy vey! Just use a bunch of units that you normally wouldn't bring...for funsies, dawg." At some point, I do believe I said something to the effect of: "Hey, you should bring an avatar of khaine!"

As I said previously Traditio, I'm all for tailoring your lists in such a way as to try and have a good matchup. You tried to convey to him that you'd like him to tone down his list, and from what I can see, it looks like he really did. Obviously you didn't particularly enjoy the game, and you didn't like his response when you asked about him bringing dark reapers (which admittedly are pretty effective against marines, though he probably took the least effective weapon possible short of a shuriken cannon on his exarchs). I suspect his answer may have been hasty/awkward as a result of people not generally being used to their opponents asking them why they took a unit.

Here's the thing though: If I knew your list looked roughly like the one you posted, and you asked me to bring a toned-down eldar list that would be roughly even with it, I'd probably be tempted to bring something very similar to what your opponent brought. Not because what he brought smashes your face in, but because what he brought is about as toned down as it gets without basically insulting you by bringing a completely incapable army.

And I don't mean this as an insult. You seem to be pretty aware that the army you're bringing is not very effective. Except for the reapers (which again, are pretty okay against marines), he basically brought a short-ranged army. Those dragons have an 18" threat range. The d-scythes have a 14" threat range (no battle focus). Scary asD-scythes are, I think he actually specifically took them because they'd be less threatening to your army than the wraith guns with their superior range thus giving you a fat, expensive target to missile off the board right away. Those rangers kill something like one marine a turn on average if that. Illic kills a marine about once every other turn. Those avengers can be mean en masse, but they're roughly equivalent to marines and can do nothing against what few transports you have. That seer council (which should have at least 5 warlocks if it's an actual seer council, by the way) really isn't all that bad. Seer councils are generally considered scary when they're running around on bikes, chopping things up with witch blades, and giving daunting rerolls to other units. If he was using them as 24" artillery, he may have actually been trying to tone things down for you. Also, if that seer council wasn't on jetbikes, that makes them a unit of toughness 3 models with 4+ saves that range in cost from 35 points a model to about 100 for the farseer to about 200 for Eldrad. You say you're running "blob" marines, but your list is really more of an MSU marine list, so spreading out and mitigating casualties from blasts should be relatively easy.

I feel like if all you did in the first few turns was shield your devastators with your vehicles and blast his reapers and/or wraiths with your missiles, you'd probably actually end up doing some significant damage to his army before he reached you.

He probably could have run his list as a pair of CADs or something rather than using the formations, but I really wouldn't call his list optimized either. Using cover/terrain to your advantage and prioritizing the right targets would go a long way against his list. I think he was basically trying to give you a turn or two where you had nothing to worry about but his reapers (and rangers; I guess) so that your missiles could get some work done.

I say this sincerely and without any intent to be rude, but the only sorts of eldar lists I could see being on roughly even footing with yours in a head-on collission would be something like ranger spam backed up with banshee spam. A given farseer rolling only on Runes of Fate has a 50/50 chance of getting Eldritch storm, so we'd be looking at taking Illic (which he did take) or an autarch with very sub-par equipment to avoid taking an HQ that you wouldt object to. And honestly? If I played ranger and banshee spam against your list, I feel like I'd still have a pretty good chance of beating you, man. :(

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Letter vs spirit, returning again.
Your opponent is not a child (or maybe they are. I wouldn't know :shrug: ). They thought what they were doing was right, as you set it down.

To put it another way, for example, I am told that person X doesn't like strawberry ice cream. When I get person X a chocolate ice cream, they then tell me that they don't like chocolate either, and wanted raspberry. How could I have know what they wanted if they didn't tell me?

This is why I am saying that this response strikes me either as autistic or disingenuous.

Either:

A. The objector can't read sub-texts/implications.
B. The objector can read sub-texts/implications, but simply chooses to ignore them.

A reasonable person would ask himself: "Why doesn't this person want me to use wraithknights or bikes? Oh, well, clearly, because his list can't really deal with them. He doesn't have the mobility to deal with bikes, and he doesn't really have the firepower to deal with a wraithknight. Perhaps I could use a seer council...well, reasoning analogously..."

[My apologies for bringing in religion, but the objector essentially reads my words like a protestant reads the Bible: i.e., a-contextually and over-literally (when it suits them, at any rate). ]

There are only two ways that I can understand the objector:

Autistically: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...he specifically doesn't like those units, right?
Maliciously: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...you know what else would completely wreck his list?

Why is there no middle ground? You know, actually doing what you say because he can't read minds.
Did you communicate as to why he shouldn't take WK and SB, and how would he know that your list was incapable of dealing with anything stronger than a light breeze? (exaggerated, but you see my point)

I know that's what I would have done. I'd have taken what I deemed as fun, with accordance to what you strictly say I can't take.
Be very careful how you respond to that.

The OP where you come across as rather controlling and passive-aggressive because your opponent can't read your mind and figure out what you really want without communicating to him? When/if you next play him, PLEASE be completely clear about what you want, and what is okay with you to play.

I basically did. When he brought up the possibility of using a seer council, I believe my words were something to the effect of: "Oy vey! Just use a bunch of units that you normally wouldn't bring...for funsies, dawg." At some point, I do believe I said something to the effect of: "Hey, you should bring an avatar of khaine!"

Fun is subjective. And again, he may have taken that as a joke or just some friendly banter. What if he'd said to you something along those lines - "Hey, you should bring more tanks and drop pod Sternguard!"

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why is there no middle ground? You know, actually doing what you say because he can't read minds.

Most people aren't autistic. Just saying.

And even some autistic people eventually learn to read sub-texts.

[And do please note, I'm not using "autistic" as an insult. I'm using it as a bare descriptive.]

Fun is subjective. And again, he may have taken that as a joke or just some friendly banter. What if he'd said to you something along those lines - "Hey, you should bring more tanks and drop pod Sternguard!"

He owns an avatar of khaine. He owns at least one wraithlord. I don't have more tanks or drop pods.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why is there no middle ground? You know, actually doing what you say because he can't read minds.

Most people aren't autistic. Just saying.

And even some autistic people eventually learn to read sub-texts.

So, most people (including me) are malicious then?

Fun is subjective. And again, he may have taken that as a joke or just some friendly banter. What if he'd said to you something along those lines - "Hey, you should bring more tanks and drop pod Sternguard!"

He owns an avatar of khaine. He owns at least one wraithlord. I don't have more tanks or drop pods.

Proxy.

Whether he has it or not is irrelevant. You asked him to take something you said would be "fun", to which Seer Council may have been.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, most people (including me) are malicious then?

I have no clue what most people would do. I further don't know what most players of warhammer 40k would do (which population is very likely not representative of the general population). I don't even know what most people on this particular forum would do (which population, again, very likely is not representative of the general population of Warhammer 40k players).

That said, the objections raised by you and certain others strike me as either autistic or malicious.

The latter really is just like the sibling saying: "I'm not touching you!"

Proxy.

Whether he has it or not is irrelevant. You asked him to take something you said would be "fun", to which Seer Council may have been.

Correction. What I said was "Use a bunch of units that you wouldn't normally use. For funsies, dawg."

Funsies =/= fun

The dude regularly uses a seer council.

It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

See the OP.

Traditio wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

See the OP.

Really not helping with supporting the argument. The OP isn't explaining much, and your default answer seems to be "Spirit vs Letters".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, most people (including me) are malicious then?

I have no clue what most people would do. I further don't know what most players of warhammer 40k would do (which population is very likely not representative of the general population). I don't even know what most people on this particular forum would do (which population, again, very likely is not representative of the general population of Warhammer 40k players).

That said, the objections raised by you and certain others strike me as either autistic or malicious.

The latter really is just like the sibling saying: "I'm not touching you!"

Most people in this thread have given their views on this whole situation.
Hell, I just let you know what I'd do, but apparently I'm either an autist or full of malice.

Proxy.

Whether he has it or not is irrelevant. You asked him to take something you said would be "fun", to which Seer Council may have been.

Correction. What I said was "Use a bunch of units that you wouldn't normally use. For funsies, dawg."

Funsies =/= fun

The dude regularly uses a seer council.

Context was required, thank you.
Also, how is funsies =/= fun?

Traditio wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

See the OP.

I am. and it looks like you want us to just pat you on the back, tell you the guy was a meanie for beating you and playing eldar ad give you a lollipop.
but no, you brought a subpar list, knowing you brought one(Seriously, Missiles with flakk?) and you get upset you lost.
Here, read this.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/12/19/you-are-not-a-special-40k-flower/

hotsauceman1 wrote:I am. and it looks like you want us to just pat you on the back, tell you the guy was a meanie for beating you and playing eldar ad give you a lollipop.
but no, you brought a subpar list, knowing you brought one(Seriously, Missiles with flakk?) and you get upset you lost.
Here, read this.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/12/19/you-are-not-a-special-40k-flower/

That article is just another piece which exemplifies the anti-scrub, "git gud" attitude. And again: refer to the OP.

No, it refers to people who whine and complain when they loose, but dont take advice. Kinda like right now. People arent anti-scrub, their anti-entitlement

Traditio wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I am. and it looks like you want us to just pat you on the back, tell you the guy was a meanie for beating you and playing eldar ad give you a lollipop.
but no, you brought a subpar list, knowing you brought one(Seriously, Missiles with flakk?) and you get upset you lost.
Here, read this.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/12/19/you-are-not-a-special-40k-flower/

That article is just another piece which exemplifies the anti-scrub, "git gud" attitude. And again: refer to the OP.

No, it's explaining how even if you give people advice about how the game actually works, people still think they can break it. It's the "scrub"'s call if they want to change and maybe win, without handicapping their opponent.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Context was required, thank you.

Yeah. While I appreciate the input of Wyldhunt, my friend didn't bring the reapers/seer council combination because he thought they would be the lesser options. He wanted to, and I [almost] quote turn the middle of the map into a "feth you" no mans land for marines.

Also, how is funsies =/= fun?

Different connotations/undertones. "Fun" is a term which is subjective/relative to the person having that fun [I won't enter here into whether there are things that are objectively fun for an Aristotelian virtuous person].

"For funsies" is roughly equivalent to "for the lulz."

In the context, it meant: "Humor me. "

So tell me, why did you feel the right to dicate how his army is played?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:No, it's explaining how even if you give people advice about how the game actually works, people still think they can break it. It's the "scrub"'s call if they want to change and maybe win, without handicapping their opponent.

Either:

1. The article exemplifies the anti-scrub, elitist, "gid gud" attitude

or

2. It's simply irrelevant to the current situation. I'm not complaining about my list not being able to place at tournaments. I don't play tournaments. In fact, the very fact that the article was even offered in this context is symptomatic of the anti-scrub, elitist, "gid gud" attitude. Not every 40k game takes place in a tournament or as preparation for a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So tell me, why did you feel the right to dicate how his army is played?

I don't. I do, however, have the right to decline to play him (or anyone else) in the first place.

Thus, for the umpteenth time, I repeat: refer to the OP.

Have you ever thought that you exemplify the anti-good, elitist, "git bad" attitude?

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Context was required, thank you.

Yeah. While I appreciate the input of Wyldhunt, my friend didn't bring the reapers/seer council combination because he thought they would be the lesser options. He wanted to, and I [almost] quote turn the middle of the map into a "feth you" no mans land for marines.

Well, I am sure with the list your run, it wouldn't too hard to set up an area of denial with any or play style.

I think we've gone as far as we're going to go here, and Rule #1, already in jeopardy, will soon be...completely ignored - to the detriment of...some.

As was noted a while back, this seems better suited to a personal blog or Facebook post.

As such - thread closed.