The question is in the title. Do you guys take best in slot or run fluffy and non optimal lists? What are your lists? What do you do in cases where fluffy is extremely optimal (I. E. The ironfire ROW for iron warriors).

always build as fluffy as you can/want. if the fluffy option happens to be good, AMAZING! (phosphex rapiers for DG, tyrants for IWs, etc.) but you shouldn't go out of your way to bring only the best units UNLESS you're specifically playing that way imo.

If you find yourself in a 30k tournament, build strong, but always keep in mind: 30k (and 40k as well) shines the nicest when you play fluffy rather than the 'optimal list' or other flavor of the month net list. And in all honesty, if you want to play competativley, 40k frankly does it a bit better (more armies, more specific combinations, more actual competitive events, etc.)

I love fluff and pretty models.

I also love winning.

So when the two coincide (like in the beautiful Sicaran or dual Kheres Contemptor), I don't see why I shouldn't take one.

But I often pick my Mhara Gal as well. It is considered poor, but holy hell that thing is sexy and after it killed about 1200 points on its own last game I just love it.

 Brennonjw wrote:
always build as fluffy as you can/want. if the fluffy option happens to be good, AMAZING! (phosphex rapiers for DG, tyrants for IWs, etc.) but you shouldn't go out of your way to bring only the best units UNLESS you're specifically playing that way imo.

If you find yourself in a 30k tournament, build strong, but always keep in mind: 30k (and 40k as well) shines the nicest when you play fluffy rather than the 'optimal list' or other flavor of the month net list. And in all honesty, if you want to play competativley, 40k frankly does it a bit better (more armies, more specific combinations, more actual competitive events, etc.)

One small points, 30K actually has something like 24 different armies. Granted, 20 of them are Marine armies, but yeah, it technically has more options then 40K.

Fluffy and winning lists can be a pain, but ultimately they are worth it, I've built as fluffy an Ironwing list as I could, just happens it turned out to actually be quite good on the table, ironically it doesn't do well against enemy tank armies, but got to have a weakness I suppose.

It consists of
Praetor with terranic Greatsword, Volkite caliver and the usual gubbins
Primaris medicae, termy armour, Greatsword, Volkite
Chaplain consol, termy armour, Greatsword and yep... A Volkite
Ten catapractii, Caliban warblades and 2 axes, 8 Volkite and 2 plasma blasters.
Spartan

This unit is fluffy as hell, old tech with the Volkites, unique with the warblades, but almost no ap 2, so enemy heroes or decent cc unit with ap2 will murder me, but quite powerful against anything with a 3+ save or worse, eats gal vorbak like they don't exist, which is funny.

 Formosa wrote:
Fluffy and winning lists can be a pain, but ultimately they are worth it, I've built as fluffy an Ironwing list as I could, just happens it turned out to actually be quite good on the table, ironically it doesn't do well against enemy tank armies, but got to have a weakness I suppose.

It consists of
Praetor with terranic Greatsword, Volkite caliver and the usual gubbins
Primaris medicae, termy armour, Greatsword, Volkite
Chaplain consol, termy armour, Greatsword and yep... A Volkite
Ten catapractii, Caliban warblades and 2 axes, 8 Volkite and 2 plasma blasters.
Spartan

This unit is fluffy as hell, old tech with the Volkites, unique with the warblades, but almost no ap 2, so enemy heroes or decent cc unit with ap2 will murder me, but quite powerful against anything with a 3+ save or worse, eats gal vorbak like they don't exist, which is funny.

I love the idea of the Ironwing, but it just seems to put to many eggs in one basket. Gotta run squadrons of tanks to get the bonuses, which means a ton of points just shooting at one target. And as is ever the weakness of vehicles in this game, all it takes is one shot to make a tank go poof. Played a game recently where my Ironwing lost a Land Raider and Deredeo turn 1, couple Predators and a rhino turn 2, all to lascannon shots. Bad luck for tank heavy armies is much more hurtful then infantry heavy it seems...

The question is in the title. Do you guys take best in slot or run fluffy and non optimal lists? What are your lists? What do you do in cases where fluffy is extremely optimal

I'm pointedly trying to be fluffy. I'm doing a Knight Household, so with many superheavies on the board it's already scary. I want to make sure it's (a) characterful and (b) has some weaknesses.

Plus, I grew up with Titan Legions - hence, as far as I'm concerned, Knight Errant suits are piloted by the cocky young Nobles after the big kill and looking to make a name for themselves.

Hence, scion aspirants - which means a 5+ ion shield save and WS/BS 3 and Thunderstike Gauntlets to match the old models.

 djones520 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Fluffy and winning lists can be a pain, but ultimately they are worth it, I've built as fluffy an Ironwing list as I could, just happens it turned out to actually be quite good on the table, ironically it doesn't do well against enemy tank armies, but got to have a weakness I suppose.

It consists of
Praetor with terranic Greatsword, Volkite caliver and the usual gubbins
Primaris medicae, termy armour, Greatsword, Volkite
Chaplain consol, termy armour, Greatsword and yep... A Volkite
Ten catapractii, Caliban warblades and 2 axes, 8 Volkite and 2 plasma blasters.
Spartan

This unit is fluffy as hell, old tech with the Volkites, unique with the warblades, but almost no ap 2, so enemy heroes or decent cc unit with ap2 will murder me, but quite powerful against anything with a 3+ save or worse, eats gal vorbak like they don't exist, which is funny.

I love the idea of the Ironwing, but it just seems to put to many eggs in one basket. Gotta run squadrons of tanks to get the bonuses, which means a ton of points just shooting at one target. And as is ever the weakness of vehicles in this game, all it takes is one shot to make a tank go poof. Played a game recently where my Ironwing lost a Land Raider and Deredeo turn 1, couple Predators and a rhino turn 2, all to lascannon shots. Bad luck for tank heavy armies is much more hurtful then infantry heavy it seems...

I see this come up quite often, but what forces you to take sqaudrons at all?

I run

the above termy squad with characters, in a land raider.

2 Tac sqauds in rhino with combi melta extra weapon.
2 support sqauds with either plasma or volkites, in rhino as above.
a Doredo
a Leviathan in a dread pod, 2 heavy flamers, phosphex discharger, this is to distract from my main force.
a squad of 2 Vindicators with machine spirit, bs5 is good here.

its a very good all round force, go with the strategic warlord traits and any of them are great, 3 units with infiltrate is a good one, either infil with the dedicated transport or outflank the plasma sqauds, brings the hurt.
I also plan on dropping the termies and land raider at some point, get more support and tac sqauds.

What I did with my WB is I modelled and painted a fluffy core of units that I thought would be cool to do (along with units I could convert with the bits I had TBH) with little consideration of their gaming power, then played with the list, saw where the weaknesses were, and am starting to plug the holes with this or that unit to stay competitive...but I still try to pick units that fit the fluff of my army in some way. Its pretty easy to do with HH marines; there's a ton of units to pick from the Crusade Army List (and I also have Daemons I can ally with)

 Formosa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Fluffy and winning lists can be a pain, but ultimately they are worth it, I've built as fluffy an Ironwing list as I could, just happens it turned out to actually be quite good on the table, ironically it doesn't do well against enemy tank armies, but got to have a weakness I suppose.

It consists of
Praetor with terranic Greatsword, Volkite caliver and the usual gubbins
Primaris medicae, termy armour, Greatsword, Volkite
Chaplain consol, termy armour, Greatsword and yep... A Volkite
Ten catapractii, Caliban warblades and 2 axes, 8 Volkite and 2 plasma blasters.
Spartan

This unit is fluffy as hell, old tech with the Volkites, unique with the warblades, but almost no ap 2, so enemy heroes or decent cc unit with ap2 will murder me, but quite powerful against anything with a 3+ save or worse, eats gal vorbak like they don't exist, which is funny.

I love the idea of the Ironwing, but it just seems to put to many eggs in one basket. Gotta run squadrons of tanks to get the bonuses, which means a ton of points just shooting at one target. And as is ever the weakness of vehicles in this game, all it takes is one shot to make a tank go poof. Played a game recently where my Ironwing lost a Land Raider and Deredeo turn 1, couple Predators and a rhino turn 2, all to lascannon shots. Bad luck for tank heavy armies is much more hurtful then infantry heavy it seems...

I see this come up quite often, but what forces you to take sqaudrons at all?

I run

the above termy squad with characters, in a land raider.

2 Tac sqauds in rhino with combi melta extra weapon.
2 support sqauds with either plasma or volkites, in rhino as above.
a Doredo
a Leviathan in a dread pod, 2 heavy flamers, phosphex discharger, this is to distract from my main force.
a squad of 2 Vindicators with machine spirit, bs5 is good here.

its a very good all round force, go with the strategic warlord traits and any of them are great, 3 units with infiltrate is a good one, either infil with the dedicated transport or outflank the plasma sqauds, brings the hurt.
I also plan on dropping the termies and land raider at some point, get more support and tac sqauds.

Well you want to take the squadrons because that is where the big buff is. I run a squadron of Predators. BS5 Lascannons and a Plasma Exterminator are just scary. I am limited by the options that I have, but the list looks like this.

Praetor (For Rite of War)

Contemptor with Kheres

Tac Squad in Rhino
Tac Squad in Rhino
Plasma Squad (In Land Raider, since its the only other transport I have, and the Praetor needs a ride)

Plasma Deredeo
Land Raider Phobos
Predator Squadron, 2 with lascannons and plasma exterminator, 1 with pred cannon and heavy bolters

On paper, this is an army with some serious punch. 6 lascannons, either BS5 or twin linked, 6 plasma cannon shots, and a plasma pie plate. Then all the other low strength shooting. It should eat infantry heavy armies, termie heavy armies, and stand a reasonable chance at tank heavy armies. But as I said before, it can be dismantled quickly, if luck is not on your side.

Deligatus
Saboteur

10 man vet with double melta
5 man vet with a missile
5 man support with plasmas
5 man head hunters

i think thats pretty fluffy for a alpha zone list right?

 Desubot wrote:
Deligatus
Saboteur

10 man vet with double melta
5 man vet with a missile
5 man support with plasmas
5 man head hunters

i think thats pretty fluffy for a alpha zone list right?

Where is your compulsory troops?

Deligatus makes vets compulsory troop (IIRC needa look at wording again. also makes me take 2)

edit: Delegatus and it lets you take them as troop. and you must take two of them so i believe its kosher.

 Desubot wrote:
Deligatus makes vets compulsory troop (IIRC needa look at wording again. also makes me take 2)

edit: Delegatus and it lets you take them as troop. and you must take two of them so i believe its kosher.

Just because its a troop choice, doesn't mean its compulsory. Support Squad for example, cannot fill one of the minimum troops. I'm not 100% on the Delegatus, but might want to check on that. You might want to check on the Delegatus as a HQ choice as well. He might not be compulsory. Not sure any Consul's are.

He makes them Compulsory with Chosen Duty. The list is fine.

Most consuls can be compulsory HQs as well and the Delegatus is among them.

Its on the FW download page if you want to look at it.

he is a centurion upgrade that MUST be my warlord. as well has no stipulations that he is not compulsory like the saboteur does.

additionally it doesn't say the vets dont count as compulsory ether.

 Desubot wrote:
Its on the FW download page if you want to look at it.

he is a centurion upgrade that MUST be my warlord. as well has no stipulations that he is not compulsory like the saboteur does.

additionally it doesn't say the vets dont count as compulsory ether.

Then yeah, you're good. Don't have my books here with me, but I've been bitten in the ass a couple times cause I didn't pay attention to the compulsory rules.

How fluffy should a list be? 100% fluffy of course!

Yeah its no problem.

I basically have no CC weapons on them so i feel like they are going to fold in a light summers breeze in close combat

 Desubot wrote:
Yeah its no problem.

I basically have no CC weapons on them so i feel like they are going to fold in a light summers breeze in close combat

Depending on who you fight, yeah. Lot of Marines are great at CC. Emps Children, DA, World Eaters, etc...

I think it depends on who you play against. I've not had any games of 30k yet, but part of what drew me to it, is that in my area no one plays with competitive lists. They just bring models they think are cool or fluffy.

I just hope no one comes along and ruins it before I get my army painted!

I love fluffy lists. My 2,00 point list for my world eaters has 50 infantry all with some kind of CC weapon, a dread and 3 tanks. My 3,000 point list has another 31 infantry






*edited for accuracy and spelling

I think the 30K Legion rules do a much better job of pushing you toward a fluffy army than much of what you see on the 40K side.

Sure, you CAN run shooty WE that avoid close combat, but then you're not taking advantage of a host of special rules that stack to create the Legion's main advantage -- extremely choppy tactical squads that can actually get some work done.

IMO take the most powerful options, paint your models well, and make up some appropriate fluff to justify it.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO take the most powerful options, paint your models well, and make up some appropriate fluff to justify it.

Na. Take what you like the model/fluff for, make some little adjustments where needed, and it'll probably do just fine.

This isn't 40k; 30k is fluff-centric.

 Ashiraya wrote:
This isn't 40k; 30k is fluff-centric.

30k is just a set of rules, it takes no position at all on how "fluffy" your army should be or what power level it should be built at. It doesn't have as much of an established competitive community as 40k, but that's a choice made by certain players, not one imposed by the game. Playing 30k by building the most powerful army you can is just as legitimate as playing it by coming up with fluff and then picking appropriate units.

It's also worth noting that 40K is arguably even more "fluff-centric" than 30K- random tables on everything and constant "forging a narrative" blurbs being prime examples. The only reason 40K seems to be more competitive is because its rules are dog-gak and thus experienced players have more opportunities to exploit the mechanics for advantages.

Anyway, winning is the primary point of playing these games- if winning wasn't important they wouldn't require you to keep score. Therefore generally speaking I take whatever the strongest units are for my legion and then write my fluff around those units. If those units are too strong compared to my opponents then the onus is on Forgeworld to fix them.

Easy, build what you like the look and paint scheme on. If it looks cool to you go for it. Look at the overall rules later. Its how I built my Tau army and keeps it friendly for normal games. Essentially read the fluff for the unit and get it in your head how you think it would look, if you like it, go for it.

Or think army wide, I want my army to do X on the tabletop, how do I accomplish this?

I do not view 30k as competitive at all and I do not believe competitiveness was the intention of the designers as well. Thus I will not min max or spam the best units just to be TFG. Then again I have been playing 30k since the rules initially came out and think this newer breed of 30k players has the wrong idea about it. To me its about epic combat and moving mass numbers of troops and tanks across the table. Win or lose it looks cool and that's the point.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
This isn't 40k; 30k is fluff-centric.

30k is just a set of rules, it takes no position at all on how "fluffy" your army should be or what power level it should be built at. It doesn't have as much of an established competitive community as 40k, but that's a choice made by certain players, not one imposed by the game. Playing 30k by building the most powerful army you can is just as legitimate as playing it by coming up with fluff and then picking appropriate units.

I am incredibly grateful my local gaming group does not think like you. We have plenty of variety in every way and direction; netlists are not a thing and the guy who brings phosphex mortars one game brings assault marines the next.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
..... Anyway, winning is the primary point of playing these games- if winning wasn't important they wouldn't require you to keep score. Therefore generally speaking I take whatever the strongest units are for my legion and then write my fluff around those units. If those units are too strong compared to my opponents then the onus is on Forgeworld to fix them.

I don't think the 'primary' focus is on winning, as much as it is on playing a game, and having an enjoyable time. While winning is a factor, it should never be considered the 'primary' factor unless you truly value winning more than any other experience that could arise in (or from) the game. And even then, that doesn't make the main factor of the game winning, it makes what you see as the main factor winning.

But to you and Peregrine both that's a terrifying mind set to have for making lists and playing the game unless your entire local meta is people who only power game. Spamming the biggest, baddest unit you can field en mass and then saying Forgeworld is the reason that your list is broken is like smashing a mailbox with a bat, and then blaming the bat manufacturer instead of yourself. If you bring 9 quad-mortars, a spartan, and 2 fire raptors in one list, you're being the donkey-cave, not forgeworld for having 'broken rules.' By this logic: It's not the eldar players fault that he brought only scat-bikes, D wraiths, and warp spiders to a friendly game, it's GW's for giving him the ability to. Which is just dumb.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO take the most powerful options, paint your models well, and make up some appropriate fluff to justify it.

Why exactly do you think that? this isn't 40k you know, It isn't a set of rules to exploit.
This was not why the HH was made or why it became popular; quite the opposite.

You're advocating turning up to a historical re-enactment with 'game' mentality; not cool, and trying to pass that off as 'normal' or as something to be encouraged is alien to every HH player i've met.

Anyway, winning is the primary point of playing these games- if winning wasn't important they wouldn't require you to keep score.

No. Both sides having fun is the primary point. Winning helps, I won't deny it, but a game where you show one another your army lists and there's no point even deploying models is no fun for either side. By comparison, I've enjoyed a lot of games I've lost. That's not to say I won't try my hardest to win, but I'd rather do so in game, from a position of more-or-less equality than spend two hours clubbing seal pups.

locarno24 wrote:

Anyway, winning is the primary point of playing these games- if winning wasn't important they wouldn't require you to keep score.

No. Both sides having fun is the primary point. Winning helps, I won't deny it, but a game where you show one another your army lists and there's no point even deploying models is no fun for either side. By comparison, I've enjoyed a lot of games I've lost. That's not to say I won't try my hardest to win, but I'd rather do so in game, from a position of more-or-less equality than spend two hours clubbing seal pups.

This. I play to have fun for the most part. It's why I also play with a selective group of people.

If I'm in open general play, or at a tourney, then it's about the win, but that is very rare for me.

If your going to bring the biggest baddest units and models and power game through, save yourself the money and find someone who will let you play with tin cans as a stand in and just roll the approriate number of dice for what your tin can is shooting. The reason why 30k isnt competitive isnt so much the players but it helps, its the fact that it is essentially a rule set designed for historical reenactment in a made up history.

We'll always have the professional Warhammer athletes. *shrug*

But I don't think 30K is something that will appeal to the biggest toolbags once they look past the veneer. While 30K isn't a 'balanced' game, there are *so* many more efficiencies to exploit on the 40K side if winning is the only real goal. And while the 40K tournament scene is slowly dying, there are still many more events with more support than what you see with 30K. Plus, the price of FW stuff and the potential hassles of working with resin are such that you have to enjoy the hobby side to get into 30K seriously.

Besides, this stuff operates on a continuum, right? There are lots of hobbyists in 30K, and yet you don't see much of certain units because they're so grossly overpriced. My nascent WE army isn't going to be built around Rampagers, I can tell you that. But then it's also still going to look like a WE army. And again, I think this is helped by how the Legion rules and rites tend to reward you for fielding some fluffier stuff.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?

depending on who you are talking to: Because certain groups of people have no understanding of 'self-limits' i.e. those who bring spartans in low point games, those who bring 6+ quad mortars ( I still wanna try it once ), those who bring jetbikes, wraithknights, and warp spiders to low point friendly games, the list goes on. These people tend to get noticed and remembered, and people don't like to see that type of view spreading, if that makes sense.

Spartans in low-points game are not a good choice. What are you actually going to win with if so much of your army is wrapped up in something that can't score?

Various Eldar units are irrelevant here in the world of 30k.

I always have...and always will run Super fluff.

Footsloggers. Dreads. Footsloggers. This is the way of the 14th Legion. This is my way.

Our Rites of War?

Shall be the Reaping...or if I want to be fancy...the Primarch's Chosen.

SLOG. SLOG SON SLOG.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Spartans in low-points game are not a good choice. What are you actually going to win with if so much of your army is wrapped up in something that can't score?

Various Eldar units are irrelevant here in the world of 30k.

Why? Eldar were in existence then. I play them in a 30K setting now and again. Just don't go full stupid with the formations and stuff, keep it "fluffy", and they fit in the setting well.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
I always have...and always will run Super fluff.

Footsloggers. Dreads. Footsloggers. This is the way of the 14th Legion. This is my way.

Our Rites of War?

Shall be the Reaping...or if I want to be fancy...the Primarch's Chosen.

SLOG. SLOG SON SLOG.

Quite, Brother! Purge with not-so-holy chem! Praise be to the well equipped infantry man! All bow before the might of dread-spam, terminator-spam, and chem-spam!

IMO, the best way to incorporate 40K armies into HH games is to use one of the HH FOCs. I'm not 100% but I'm pretty sure this is exactly what FW recommends you do in their literature.

I'd go one further and say, in addition to using a HH FOC, disallow all formations and all Rites of War.

This is how we do it in our group, anyways, and it's worked our pretty well for the most part.

Why disallow Rites of War? They are one of the best parts of 30k.

Because RoWs are kind of like Formations in a sense, and if you would want to prohibit your opponent from using formations, I think its appropriate to do the same.

I've always done it like this:
both sides use the age of darkness CAD. Only troops score (certain units we give implacable advance i.e. 'nid warriors, nobz, etc.). Allow a single formation (but not a formation of formations) for the 40k side. allow the 40k army to double the max unit size (forge world recommendation) for their units. I.e. 60-gaunt strong squad of gaunts

Unlike formations, RoW typically come with some fairly hefty restrictions. Like the Reaping, which gives formation-like bonuses but disables Run, Flat Out and Turbo-Boost!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brennonjw wrote:
I've always done it like this:
both sides use the age of darkness CAD. Only troops score (certain units we give implacable advance i.e. 'nid warriors, nobz, etc.). Allow a single formation (but not a formation of formations) for the 40k side. allow the 40k army to double the max unit size (forge world recommendation) for their units. I.e. 60-gaunt strong squad of gaunts

This looks good.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Unlike formations, RoW typically come with some fairly hefty restrictions. Like the Reaping, which gives formation-like bonuses but disables Run, Flat Out and Turbo-Boost!

I do understand this, and I think HH Rites of War are basically what 40k formations should be ("accept limits and get rewards" vs. just "get rewards").

That said, alot of these newer 40k codices since Necrons are actually built around formations, so asking the opponent not to use formations, while you yourself do not give up anything, just doesn't seem right to me.

I could see Brennonjw's approach working, but I think 40k formations have become so silly, I honestly just don't want to play against them anymore.

Col. Dash wrote:
Easy, build what you like the look and paint scheme on. If it looks cool to you go for it. Look at the overall rules later. Its how I built my Tau army and keeps it friendly for normal games. Essentially read the fluff for the unit and get it in your head how you think it would look, if you like it, go for it.

Or think army wide, I want my army to do X on the tabletop, how do I accomplish this?

I do not view 30k as competitive at all and I do not believe competitiveness was the intention of the designers as well. Thus I will not min max or spam the best units just to be TFG. Then again I have been playing 30k since the rules initially came out and think this newer breed of 30k players has the wrong idea about it. To me its about epic combat and moving mass numbers of troops and tanks across the table. Win or lose it looks cool and that's the point.

in all fairness, EVERY HH book 1-6 tells you to play fluffy, if you want to play another way, that's fine, but is not the intention of the designers, I'm gonna get accused of being a 30k elitist, but take that 40k attitude and keep it there.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Why exactly do you think that? this isn't 40k you know, It isn't a set of rules to exploit.
This was not why the HH was made or why it became popular; quite the opposite.

You're advocating turning up to a historical re-enactment with 'game' mentality; not cool, and trying to pass that off as 'normal' or as something to be encouraged is alien to every HH player i've met.

This is all your opinion, not the rules of the game. Please stop acting like you are the only one who knows how to have fun, and anyone who enjoys playing the game in a different way is Doing It Wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brennonjw wrote:
If you bring 9 quad-mortars, a spartan, and 2 fire raptors in one list, you're being the donkey-cave, not forgeworld for having 'broken rules.'

CASUAL AT ALL COSTS OBEY MY FLUFF OR YOU ARE A WAAC TFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see anything different between 30k vs. 40k regards power armies vs. fluff armies. If people want to lean more on the power-gaming route and have willing opponents, who cares?

Maybe some of you all have tons of available opponents and are worried about a scene at an flgs going sour or something, but I'm playing with a fairly small group, and smaller still are those with a 30k army. It's pretty simple to work these things out if you know your opponents. )

Is 30k powergaming even a thing at hobby stores and such? Are there stores that hold HH tournaments? It's 100% 40k at my nearest flgs as far as I understand.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
If you bring 9 quad-mortars, a spartan, and 2 fire raptors in one list, you're being the donkey-cave, not forgeworld for having 'broken rules.'

CASUAL AT ALL COSTS OBEY MY FLUFF OR YOU ARE A WAAC TFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OR, bring those things, but don't have the gakky explanation of "I just bring the most powerful options" that you gave earlier. ESPECIALLY since it's this kinda crap that make people refuse to play against 30k, eldar or other similar strong lists. If your local metas is mostly power gamers, sure. If it's a mix, it would be good to have some self restraint. So instead of being an over-reactive dick, why not expand on your position if people saying "don't power game, 40k is better for that play-style than 30k is"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't see anything different between 30k vs. 40k regards power armies vs. fluff armies. If people want to lean more on the power-gaming route and have willing opponents, who cares?

Maybe some of you all have tons of available opponents and are worried about a scene at an flgs going sour or something, but I'm playing with a fairly small group, and smaller still are those with a 30k army. It's pretty simple to work these things out if you know your opponents. )

Is 30k powergaming even a thing at hobby stores and such? Are there stores that hold HH tournaments? It's 100% 40k at my nearest flgs as far as I understand.

I think I've seen 1 or 2 HH tournaments/events, but from the army lists, they were all pretty toned down. As for 30k powergaming: locally we all 'threaten' with the best cheese we've uncovered, but no one actually fields these threats, it's more like a game of "My car is nicer than your car" but with silly rules.

You want fluffy and competitive?

Take the Alpha Legion and run a recon company.

Praetor on a jetbike loaded for bear, power dagger, digital lasers, paragon blade the whole bit or...

Take Skorr for some serious shenanigans hehe

Take three sniper recon squads, infiltrate them and enjoy being shrouded turn one,

Same goes for your 5-6 man jetbike squads with melta bombs. Infiltrate them in close and watch as your opponent shats himself trying to get through a 2+ armour and cover save turn one. Unless he has a Typhon at which point maybe outflank the bikes, my Typhon loves to eat jetbikes on turn 1.

Drop pod in a dual close combat Contemptor with graviton guns and neuter some heavy armour.

Take Javelin speeders and outflank them with multi meltas and either lascannons or missile launchers.

Alpha Legion are sneaky bastards and this Rite of War is perfectly balanced for fluff and strength.

It doesn't get any better than 30k.

valace2 wrote:
You want fluffy and competitive?

Take the Alpha Legion and run a recon company.

Praetor on a jetbike loaded for bear, power dagger, digital lasers, paragon blade the whole bit or...

Take Skorr for some serious shenanigans hehe

Take three sniper recon squads, infiltrate them and enjoy being shrouded turn one,

Same goes for your 5-6 man jetbike squads with melta bombs. Infiltrate them in close and watch as your opponent shats himself trying to get through a 2+ armour and cover save turn one. Unless he has a Typhon at which point maybe outflank the bikes, my Typhon loves to eat jetbikes on turn 1.

Drop pod in a dual close combat Contemptor with graviton guns and neuter some heavy armour.

Take Javelin speeders and outflank them with multi meltas and either lascannons or missile launchers.

Alpha Legion are sneaky bastards and this Rite of War is perfectly balanced for fluff and strength.

It doesn't get any better than 30k.

I might have a play with the Recon Rite of War with my Alpha Legion next game - I haven't really looked into many non-legion specific rites of war. Seems like fun and not stupidly OP but also not overly crap

Unfortunately head hunters are just not very good, and their RoW is flat out bad.

I like Coils, but it is better for larger games.

I run Pride, and am looking forward to running the Recon Company.

Alpha Legion are also into shock and awe, infiltrating terminators backed up by quad mortars and a Typhon.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Why exactly do you think that? this isn't 40k you know, It isn't a set of rules to exploit.
This was not why the HH was made or why it became popular; quite the opposite.

You're advocating turning up to a historical re-enactment with 'game' mentality; not cool, and trying to pass that off as 'normal' or as something to be encouraged is alien to every HH player i've met.

This is all your opinion, not the rules of the game. Please stop acting like you are the only one who knows how to have fun, and anyone who enjoys playing the game in a different way is Doing It Wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brennonjw wrote:
If you bring 9 quad-mortars, a spartan, and 2 fire raptors in one list, you're being the donkey-cave, not forgeworld for having 'broken rules.'

CASUAL AT ALL COSTS OBEY MY FLUFF OR YOU ARE A WAAC TFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope, not 'my opinion' (like it's only me who thinks this!) It's the attitude espoused by everyone i've ever played against and mirrored by most in this thread.
If you have 'fun' breaking the rules of the game, thats cool, but is also catered for nicely by 40k - it's geared toward that and has even got some alien races to play as.

The point of the HH was as an expansion of the 40k rulebook to play battles set in the pre-history of the 40k universe;
The first book betrayal was set on isstvan3, the second was set on isstvan5 and both were nothing but 'historical re-encatments' - if you got into it between book 1 and two you got into it for that

So, no, not just my opinion - you would know that if you'd stopped to think about what you wrote before posting.

Also; 'stop acting like you are the only one who knows how to have fun'?
Because nobody but YOU knows how to have fun i suppose?
I'm going to pop with laughter in a minuite!


I was initially worried that this thread was getting off topic, but looking at the thread since ol' peregrine first posted is probably the best answer we could give... Kudos to all involved.

valace2 wrote:
Unfortunately head hunters are just not very good, and their RoW is flat out bad.

I like Coils, but it is better for larger games.

I run Pride, and am looking forward to running the Recon Company.

Alpha Legion are also into shock and awe, infiltrating terminators backed up by quad mortars and a Typhon.

Yeh I have given that RoW a go - wasn't the biggest fan, however it was just a 1500pt game I can see it being more beneficial when a giant chunk of your points value isn't taken up by 20 not that durable troops.
I think headhunters would be ALOT better if they had an additional attack in cc so they were more useful on the charge - but hey, I will still have at least one squad of them because they look boss as all hell, in fact I have used at least 1 squad of them in every single alpha legion game I have played

sm3g wrote:

valace2 wrote:
Unfortunately head hunters are just not very good, and their RoW is flat out bad.

I like Coils, but it is better for larger games.

I run Pride, and am looking forward to running the Recon Company.

Alpha Legion are also into shock and awe, infiltrating terminators backed up by quad mortars and a Typhon.

Yeh I have given that RoW a go - wasn't the biggest fan, however it was just a 1500pt game I can see it being more beneficial when a giant chunk of your points value isn't taken up by 20 not that durable troops.
I think headhunters would be ALOT better if they had an additional attack in cc so they were more useful on the charge - but hey, I will still have at least one squad of them because they look boss as all hell, in fact I have used at least 1 squad of them in every single alpha legion game I have played

I have a squad with combi meltas, figure I will run them when I finally get Alpharius, preferred enemy will help them quite a bit.

I just run mine with bolters and the heavy bolter - I am still not 100% I am convinced Banestrike rounds are worth it - purely from a reduced range perspective (which is what I assume contributes to their high point cost)

sm3g wrote:
I just run mine with bolters and the heavy bolter - I am still not 100% I am convinced Banestrike rounds are worth it - purely from a reduced range perspective (which is what I assume contributes to their high point cost)

Problem is veteran snipers outclass banestrike, which is another reason I like Pride. Outflank and take out those pesky T7 rapiers.

An extra attack would go a long way towards helping justify their point costs. Will run Laernan terminators when the models come out.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Nope, not 'my opinion' (like it's only me who thinks this!) It's the attitude espoused by everyone i've ever played against and mirrored by most in this thread.

The fact that other people share your opinion doesn't make it any less of an opinion.

If you have 'fun' breaking the rules of the game, thats cool, but is also catered for nicely by 40k - it's geared toward that and has even got some alien races to play as.

And? Why are competitive players limited to playing only one game? The fact that 40k exists doesn't mean that 30k isn't available, just like the existence of MTG doesn't prevent a competitive player from playing X-Wing.

The point of the HH was as an expansion of the 40k rulebook to play battles set in the pre-history of the 40k universe;
The first book betrayal was set on isstvan3, the second was set on isstvan5 and both were nothing but 'historical re-encatments' - if you got into it between book 1 and two you got into it for that

That's funny, because I seem to remember every 30k book having general rules for building your own armies and fighting random battles with them, not just "historical" scenarios. Perhaps you got a different version of the book that has some pages missing?

Also; 'stop acting like you are the only one who knows how to have fun'?
Because nobody but YOU knows how to have fun i suppose?

I said no such thing. Do you honestly not understand the difference between "my way of having fun is correct, not yours" and "there is more than one way to have fun, yours isn't the only one"?

 Brennonjw wrote:
I don't think the 'primary' focus is on winning, as much as it is on playing a game, and having an enjoyable time.

locarno24 wrote:
No. Both sides having fun is the primary point.

Attempting to win is supposed to be the means through which you achieve the desired end, which is to have fun. If someone wins the game, and the loser feels that they didn't enjoy the experience, then one of two things have happened: either the loser is a sore one, or the game's rules have an imbalance that gave the winner such an overwhelming advantage that the loser couldn't overcome it. If the latter situation is the case, then what that means is that the rules need to be fixed. Blaming the winner for literally just playing the game via the rules designed by the developers is pointless.

Spamming the biggest, baddest unit you can field en mass and then saying Forgeworld is the reason that your list is broken is like smashing a mailbox with a bat, and then blaming the bat manufacturer instead of yourself. If you bring 9 quad-mortars, a spartan, and 2 fire raptors in one list, you're being the donkey-cave, not forgeworld for having 'broken rules.' By this logic: It's not the eldar players fault that he brought only scat-bikes, D wraiths, and warp spiders to a friendly game, it's GW's for giving him the ability to. Which is just dumb.

If Forgeworld/Games Workshop give their rules to you in exchange for your money under the promise that their rules are high-quality and balanced, and it turns out that they aren't, then the responsibility is on them to fix them so that they match what was advertised.

IDK on that point. For example: Monstrous creature rules are a bit too strong at the moment. So say someone's Tau list is (somehow) 3 riptides, a ghost keel, a stormsurge, and the big Forge world suit among other things. When they win every game against their 'Nid playing buddy without ever trying to change their own list and leaping strait to blaming GW, it seems like a sign of a person who refuses to take responsibility for what they themselves did.

This problem is more obvious in 30k: to bring an "OP" list you really do need to spam the best of the best, and if you're doing that GW is not to blame: the player is since THEY chose to build their list in that manner. Now if GW made a rule called: you win if you bring a spartan and and say "i win", THEN it would be GWs fault. we don't blame ford for human error caused car accidents, why do we blame GW for human caused OP lists?

 Brennonjw wrote:
When they win every game against their 'Nid playing buddy without ever trying to change their own list and leaping strait to blaming GW, it seems like a sign of a person who refuses to take responsibility for what they themselves did.

Exactly. The Tyranid player should take responsibility for their actions, build a better list, and compete on an even level with the Tau player.

This problem is more obvious in 30k: to bring an "OP" list you really do need to spam the best of the best, and if you're doing that GW is not to blame: the player is since THEY chose to build their list in that manner.

No, it's GW's fault. Spamming good units is a perfectly legitimate way to play the game. If the rules make this a bad experience for some people then the problem is broken rules, not the fact that some players didn't follow your unwritten rules about how they should build their armies.

No the answer in 30k is to build a mirror list and then flip a coin. I have been over to Nottingham twice and in both of my pilgrimages I have had my faith in this hobby restored and would like to think I am responsible for 30k being as big as it is in my area.

Show up to one of our events with 9 phosphex quad mortars a Typhon and twenty tacticals and good luck getting a game.

Actually it won't happen. Wanna pull that crap, go play 40k.

yeah, that unwritten rule of: "Don't bring only the best units to friendly (or pick-up) games and then blame the other guy for not being good enough when you win, and then using the company as a scape-goat if you get called out." My bad, I should have known that I was in the wrong.


EDIT: Peregrine, either you're messing with me (and doing a wonderful job, BTW ). Or you must really dislike your local Warhammer buddies.

 Brennonjw wrote:
yeah, that unwritten rule of: "Don't bring only the best units to friendly (or pick-up) games and then blame the other guy for not being good enough when you win, and then using the company as a scape-goat if you get called out." My bad, I should have known that I was in the wrong.

What about the unwritten rule of "don't bring bad lists that can't compete with the best lists to a friendly (or pick-up) game and then blame the other guy for being too good when you lose, then using the company as a scapegoat if you get called out"? Why is it always the player with the stronger list that is responsible for making sure that both players have an equal chance of winning? Why doesn't the player with the weaker list have an obligation to bring a better list to a pick-up game, and save the weak lists for special pre-negotiated games against other people with similar weak lists?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
yeah, that unwritten rule of: "Don't bring only the best units to friendly (or pick-up) games and then blame the other guy for not being good enough when you win, and then using the company as a scape-goat if you get called out." My bad, I should have known that I was in the wrong.

What about the unwritten rule of "don't bring bad lists that can't compete with the best lists to a friendly (or pick-up) game and then blame the other guy for being too good when you lose, then using the company as a scapegoat if you get called out"? Why is it always the player with the stronger list that is responsible for making sure that both players have an equal chance of winning? Why doesn't the player with the weaker list have an obligation to bring a better list to a pick-up game, and save the weak lists for special pre-negotiated games against other people with similar weak lists?

Wait...

So unless I bring something that can compete with 9 phosphex quad mortars, a Typhon and an allied Knight house I am doing it wrong?

Please tell me that's not what you mean, because if it is I will happily buy you 30 scat bikes and a couple of wraithknights so you can play something you enjoy.

valace2 wrote:
So unless I bring something that can compete with 9 phosphex quad mortars, a Typhon and an allied Knight house I am doing it wrong?

Only if you're going to complain about how the guy who brought that list is doing something wrong. If you're going to attempt to impose an obligation to bring a weaker list on them then you need to accept a matching obligation to bring a stronger list. However, if you are willing to allow each player to bring whatever they want without judgment then this isn't an issue.

The strogn vs fluffy list thing is never going to have a single answer you know right guys?
Some people, to them fun is winning, and when they don't win it isn't fun. To others just playing the game is fun - its the type of mentality a person has.
Secondly - I don't care if someone wipes the table with me because their list is OP, as long as I am learning. Around here across various hobbys (Warmachine, 30k, 40k...) the people that take it seriously, go to tournaments etc. They often play to win - however if they flog you they are happy to talk you through your options, what you could have done better, what to try next time to counter what etc etc... If people are going to flog people they should at least be helpful and constructive in building the community.

Also, id much prefer to play against an OP list than I would have a game where you roll like utter gak - losing from something that is beyond your control, I get dice a random but when you start failing things like 10 out of 12 3+ saves...it pisses me off to no end!

those who bring 6+ quad mortars

I actually experienced this before 30k was a thing. My termagant/tervigon "bughouse swarm" tyranids, a couple of editions ago, got paired at a Warhammer World Forge World event against a (beautifully painted) Death Korps Siege Army with 3 batteries of 3 thud guns each.

I think turn one can pretty much be summed up with the phrase "oh dear god not the face".

Great game, but of course (a) they didn't do much to monstrous creatures and (b) they've since got so much nastier it's untrue (BS4 astartes crew, no turn spent reloading every two turns firing, phosphex canister shot)

I don't even see how this is a discussion any more. It's pretty simple: If you don't like playing against someone, don't.

If you want a highly tactical game where you do your utmost best to win, play others like that.
If you want to play a fluffy game, play others like that.

No one is right or wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:


CASUAL AT ALL COSTS OBEY MY FLUFF OR YOU ARE A WAAC TFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one is stopping you from building your hardcore minmaxed list and patting yourself on the back for that.

Of course, as people's patience run out and you run out of people to play with, you can just as happily sit in your dark corner and tell yourself that they are TFGs who enforce their opinions on others.

It is not my business. I am just happy nobody thinks like you do here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
However, if you are willing to allow each player to bring whatever they want without judgment then this isn't an issue.

Our campaign organiser has been generous enough with his campaign to do it like this (we mainly play campaign games).

Fortunately nobody has abused it yet.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Nope, not 'my opinion' (like it's only me who thinks this!) It's the attitude espoused by everyone i've ever played against and mirrored by most in this thread.

The fact that other people share your opinion doesn't make it any less of an opinion.

No, it makes it the 'general concensus' as well.

If you have 'fun' breaking the rules of the game, thats cool, but is also catered for nicely by 40k - it's geared toward that and has even got some alien races to play as.

And? Why are competitive players limited to playing only one game? The fact that 40k exists doesn't mean that 30k isn't available, just like the existence of MTG doesn't prevent a competitive player from playing X-Wing.

Again, you miss the point: people dislike powergamers so much they are willing to buy a pure forgeworld 30k army and books just to get away from it!
What you're doing is seeing a gaming system where people do not powergame and thinking "why aren't they taking the ultimate stuff? the fewlz! i'll show them how to play this game properly!!" neglecting the fact that a lot of HH players are here to get away from that BS attitude. What you're doing is farting in a lift and inviting everyone else to take a sniff and join in because it's 'funny'.

The point of the HH was as an expansion of the 40k rulebook to play battles set in the pre-history of the 40k universe;
The first book betrayal was set on isstvan3, the second was set on isstvan5 and both were nothing but 'historical re-encatments' - if you got into it between book 1 and two you got into it for that

That's funny, because I seem to remember every 30k book having general rules for building your own armies and fighting random battles with them, not just "historical" scenarios. Perhaps you got a different version of the book that has some pages missing?

Oh dear, i really am going to pop if you keep this up!!
Betrayal: page 143 - "The isstvan 3 campaign presented in this section allows you and your friends to refight the desperate and bloody battles of the betrayal and slaughter which set the galaxy of the 31st millennium afire. Designed to be used with the crusade legion army list presented later in this book, this chapter offers a structured narrative campaign in which you take command of the forces ranged on isstvan 3. there are new missions, rules for scenery and battlefield traits, and a story driven timeline of events which frames the games you will play"
It also says..
"The Isstvan 3 campaign shown here is a narrative campaign system designed for use with the 6th edition rulebook of warhammer 40,000...."

Massacre: page 170 - "The following section is designed as a campaign 'toolkit' to let you and your friendsfight out the cataclysmic batyle of the dropsite massacre, and the deadly handful of hours on Isstvan 5 in your own exciting tabletop battles of warhammer 40,000. It is based on the narrative weight of the story and the forces featured in this book and it's predecessor 'betrayal' and the forthcoming book 3 extermination, and can be played out in conjunction with those books as a massive linked campaign with..."
It also says..
"The dropsite massacre campaign shown here is a narrative campaign system designed for use with the 6th edition of warhammer 40,000"

If you do own the books, you clearly skipped to the army list and stayed there.

Also; 'stop acting like you are the only one who knows how to have fun'?
Because nobody but YOU knows how to have fun i suppose?

I said no such thing. Do you honestly not understand the difference between "my way of having fun is correct, not yours" and "there is more than one way to have fun, yours isn't the only one"?

For me 30k is all about the fluff. You don't always have to win to have fun.

Playing 'best in slot' isn't an issue if a game is balanced properly. 40k is horribly unbalanced. 30k is pretty well balanced.

This is why I have no problem with people playing to win, but I've totally given up on 40k.

Warham is a strategy game, and it has points for a reason. If you're choosing to deliberately hobble your army for fluff reasons or because you feel your army is overpowered, how can you be sure how much your opponent will do the same? It's all pretty arbitrary at that point and you might as well be playing Age of Sigmar.

This is why when I'm playing in tournaments, or with randos at the gaming store, I try to make the best list I can. I'm still limited by the models I physically possess, as is everyone, so I can't just clog a table with quad-mortars because it seems like a good idea on paper, and I'm not opposed to taking a weird list because it seems fun (I once had a jokaero punch out a terminator chamption, moments like that make the game for me!), but when I do, I'll still try and make sure it's the best version of that weird list possible.

Case in point, I have a small group of people who live in my apt building I'll still play 40k with. One ork player, one chaos space marine player, and me (a blood angel player). Our armies are pretty balanced against each other. Further more we've agreed in advance, no fliers or superheavies, since the ork guy owns one stompa that we think is weirdly balanced, and I'm the only one who owns fliers. So we're in effect all playing by the same rules, agreed upon in advance, and after that we can just try and make the best lists possible with the models we have, and still have fun games against each other.

The "best in slot" mentality is a natural thing and I don't think we can't acknowledge that. BUT! by doing so we can combat it. Fluff should always' be your guide.

As for how fluffy a list should be? IMHO if you can say to yourself that I can make this list more fluffy? then it's not fluffy enough.

A good way to play fluffy Legion marines is to build one of each of your legion-specific units and take at least 2 legion-specific units each game.

 jasper76 wrote:
A good way to play fluffy Legion marines is to build one of each of your legion-specific units and take at least 2 legion-specific units each game.

I'm not sure I agree. take death guard for example: Why would every one of their battles include the elite guards? as well as that, why would every battle have specialized chem terminators? I like the idea, but I don't think it always applies (Same goes for Imperial Fists: not every battle is gonna have lots of breachers or elite stabby crusader infantry)

I was offering more of a guideline than a hard-in-place rule. I don't know about each and every Legions special units. I'd just think if you were looking for a good way to accelerate from zero to fluff, the legion-specific units would be a good way to go, generally speaking.

 SirDonlad wrote:
No, it makes it the 'general concensus' as well.

And? The fact that a lot of players, even enough players for "general consensus" to be an appropriate description, have decided that competitive play is not welcome in their community does not change the fact that this "don't build powerful lists" rule is not found in the rulebook. It's nothing more than personal opinions about how to have fun the right way, combined with a bizarre need to declare that other people are having fun the wrong way.

Again, you miss the point: people dislike powergamers so much they are willing to buy a pure forgeworld 30k army and books just to get away from it!

That's nice. On the other hand some people buy 30k to play it competitively. And the anti-powergamer crowd doesn't get to claim exclusive ownership of 30k.

What you're doing is farting in a lift and inviting everyone else to take a sniff and join in because it's 'funny'.

And what you're doing is declaring that your way of having fun is the only acceptable way, and everyone who wants to play the game in ways you don't enjoy is some kind of TFG. I think it should be obvious why this is rather poor behavior.

Oh dear, i really am going to pop if you keep this up!!

{rulebook quotes}

If you do own the books, you clearly skipped to the army list and stayed there.

Did you even read what I said? I said that the books aren't just for "historical" missions, not that they don't contain "historical" missions or campaigns. In addition to those missions and campaigns you will find general rules and army lists for playing random "let's play a 2500 point game of 30k" games with no story elements in their rules. Whether you admit it or not FW has published a game system that supports non-"historical" gaming just fine.

I think he intent of the OP was to find a way to build lists that are both fluffy and competitive, rather than to endlessly debate the pros and cons of powergaming vs. fluff gaming.

FWIW, Any gamer worth their salt knows that fluff gaming is like 20x more fun than powergaming, and that powergamers are just fluff gamers hoping to meet a decent human being to play fluffy games with.

(Im the OP, btw.)

To adress Peregrine, you bring up some good points that I have seen you raise in similar threads. I for one game for a mix of fluff and winning. Thanks for sharing your point of view though.

From my recent experience with my gaming community, I take a pretty fluffy list at 2k, and I still find it stronger than other people's. However, I won't tone it down often because I think it's really cool and fits Iron Warriors fluff wise.

Siege Breaker in cata armor with 5x tyrants
Delegates for Ironfire ROW
3x Quad Mortar (usually not phosphex)
2x Medusa
2x 20 tactical with apoths
Contemptor with dual kheres

However, winning becomes not fun when it's too easy. So when I know I am facing a guy who runs weak lists, I tone mine down too so we both have fun.

On the topic of preventing the WAAC mentality , it seems that all we have to do is learn from the 40k scene and not be WAAC. This means try to run narrative campaigns and don't bring insane lists.

There's also a line for fluffy army that are very strong. As a 40k example, an Iyanden wraith force or a White Scars Gladius are both very fluffy and extremly powerful, cheesy even.

Unfortunately, a CSM thousand sons or IG Foot platoon army can also be super fluffy and total junk.

If you pit one of the former against one of the later, it's not going to result in a fun game (to be honest, it's not even going to be a game as it's a forgone conclusion before either side even unpacks their models).

It comes back to the same thing, pitt powerlists against each other and put low level lists against each other. If you're on a 47 game winning streak, you need to ask yourself if you're actually that good of a general or if you're basically just bullying others who're running much, much weaker lists than you. If you're a weak enough person to need that sort of ego stroking, well, then there's not much to it, that's the sort of person you are, but you're not going to be getting a game with me.

Ideally, in a casual setting, everyone should have a ~50% win rate, +/- 10% where the better tactics or crazy dice luck wins the day. The stronger general should be looking to tone his list down and use skills to overcome their handicap and teach the weaker player after the game (as well as build their own skills and use units that are cool but not usually good enough to be considered for competative lists). Sure, if it's a tournament or practice for one, go nuts, bring your cheeseiest cheese from cheesington city on the shores of cheese lake.

Really, at the end of the day, if your fun comes at the expense of someone elses, then yes, you're playing the game wrong.

My regular opponent allows for fun and fluffy lists without having to worry too much about needing to bring a strong build.

Playing him encourages me to go nuts with the funnier units in the game, like a tooled up for melee Lord Marshal.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
No, it makes it the 'general concensus' as well.

And? The fact that a lot of players, even enough players for "general consensus" to be an appropriate description, have decided that competitive play is not welcome in their community does not change the fact that this "don't build powerful lists" rule is not found in the rulebook. It's nothing more than personal opinions about how to have fun the right way, combined with a bizarre need to declare that other people are having fun the wrong way.

Taking that argument and turning it around, the force org chart says that the only compulsory units you have to take are an HQ and two troops - everything else is optional i.e. you dont have to take 9 quad mortars - you could do plenty of damage with three. or one.

Again, you miss the point: people dislike powergamers so much they are willing to buy a pure forgeworld 30k army and books just to get away from it!

That's nice. On the other hand some people buy 30k to play it competitively. And the anti-powergamer crowd doesn't get to claim exclusive ownership of 30k.

Thats cool, but i honestly don't care your gaming group is up to (no offense intended); but you've come to a thread asking how to avoid powergaming to espouse the merits of powergaming.

What you're doing is farting in a lift and inviting everyone else to take a sniff and join in because it's 'funny'.

And what you're doing is declaring that your way of having fun is the only acceptable way, and everyone who wants to play the game in ways you don't enjoy is some kind of TFG. I think it should be obvious why this is rather poor behavior.

The problem with 'your way' of 'having fun' is that it's toxic to the way that most (nearly all) 'have fun'; we are in it for the fluff - that means we don't really care about winning or losing, it's what you're re-enacting that counts more than anything (it's why some people get 'funny' about mk8 marine armour)
When looking at a force, you make some fluff for it, right? you said so yourself in your first post - so why does the primarch of a legion go out on patrol with a scouting party and happen to come accross another primarch on patrol with a scouting party?
And that happens every time you play presumeably, because why would anyone in your meta take anything 'sub-par, right?

It's a shame really, cause you're missing out on a huge chunk of the experience (oh yeah, that was definetly me telling you that you're not having fun your way)

Oh dear, i really am going to pop if you keep this up!!

{rulebook quotes}

If you do own the books, you clearly skipped to the army list and stayed there.

Did you even read what I said? I said that the books aren't just for "historical" missions, not that they don't contain "historical" missions or campaigns. In addition to those missions and campaigns you will find general rules and army lists for playing random "let's play a 2500 point game of 30k" games with no story elements in their rules. Whether you admit it or not FW has published a game system that supports non-"historical" gaming just fine.

 SirDonlad wrote:


So there you go peregrine, the heresy was not intended as anything but a campain system right up till it became staggeringly profitable and was expanded in book 2 along with the note that it is supposed to be a campain book really.

Seems like you should go fire up the time machine and go back and play games before book 2 and subsequent came out. The game has changed.

I totally agree fluff is funner, but that doesn't mean 30k isn't a competitive game. 2 players face off, someone wins, someone loses, ergo it is competitive.

I know, thats why i included that bit from book 2.

The problem i see with 'best in slot' mentality is that theres no way to 'fix' that with a rule you can write down.
I like the sound of a sith-style 'rule of two' because of the starwars reference, but that can only work in an apocalypse sized game - two medusa's are pretty nasty under 2000 points, as are quad mortars (let alone units of quad mortars!)
I'm not convinced that a rule of only ever taking one of anything will fix it either.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Taking that argument and turning it around, the force org chart says that the only compulsory units you have to take are an HQ and two troops - everything else is optional i.e. you dont have to take 9 quad mortars - you could do plenty of damage with three. or one.

I really don't see what your point is. Mandatory vs. optional FOC selections has nothing to do with how fluffy your list should be.

The problem with 'your way' of 'having fun' is that it's toxic to the way that most (nearly all) 'have fun'; we are in it for the fluff - that means we don't really care about winning or losing, it's what you're re-enacting that counts more than anything (it's why some people get 'funny' about mk8 marine armour)

And your way of playing is toxic to the kind of competitive game that other people want to have. Having different preferences is fine, even when those preferences conflict, but please stop assuming that your way of playing the game is somehow morally superior.

When looking at a force, you make some fluff for it, right? you said so yourself in your first post - so why does the primarch of a legion go out on patrol with a scouting party and happen to come accross another primarch on patrol with a scouting party?

Because the game is actually a "zoomed in" view of a larger battle, with the two primarchs and their elite bodyguards meeting in the middle with the intent of killing each other. See, that wasn't so hard to come up with!

Oh brilliant, you don't read what i write and then accuse me of not reading what you write - you didn't bother reading the books it's clear, because in book one has absolutely NOTHING on using the missions outside of a campain - i challenge you to find a quote that says so!

Of course there's no explicit quote, because FW assumes that their audience is smart enough to figure out that they can use the army lists and missions as single games, even if they aren't explicitly given permission to do so. That's why the book gives you a general space marine army list for constructing your own forces, not simply a list of "historical" forces that you are to use in each mission. And you'll notice that most of the campaign missions are the same kind of "pick armies, roll on a random table to see deployment zones and mission objectives" games as found in normal 40k.

Although, if you want an implicit statement of "this is for general gaming", just look at page 183:

The following section details rules for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 set against the background of the dark and terrible wars of the Horus Heresy, along with a full army list for the Space Marine Legions as they were during the dying days of the Great Crusade.

Note the following:

1) The rules are for playing games of Warhammer 40,000, not games of The Horus Heresy Campaign.

2) The space marine army list is from the end of the Great Crusade, not just the Isstvan III battle, implying pretty clearly that it is meant for general 30k-era games.

And then we look at page 277, where we find the following:

... and if you are using the Isstvan III campaign ...

IF you are using it. This rather clearly implies that not using the campaign system is a normal and expected thing to do with the army list, otherwise there would be no need to mention a specific situation that comes up when using the campaign.

In short: everyone but you seems to have figured out that the 30k rules and army lists were meant to be used in general gaming, and that the narrative campaigns were just one way of using those rules, not the only or default way.

In my opinion, lists should be fluffy first and powered-up second.

List building is not where the game should be decided - it should require some input from both sides.

The goal of the game is to have fun, and the objective is to win. By all means seek to accomplish the objective, but also never lose sight of the goal.

If your opponent is telling you they aren't having fun against your list, then there are too things you can do:

1) Tell them to stop whining and suck it up! (The TFG thing)
2) Take their concerns into account for the rest of the game and subsequent games as well.

My opinions is that with how vast the legions are and how many theaters of war they where in, anything is possible. Its totally possible white scars would have to do a seige and forgo their bikes. Ifon warriors could totally end up doing drop pod shock and awe in the middle of the castle. So imo, anything is fluffy. Heack, rites are what let you make fluffy lists.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Taking that argument and turning it around, the force org chart says that the only compulsory units you have to take are an HQ and two troops - everything else is optional i.e. you dont have to take 9 quad mortars - you could do plenty of damage with three. or one.

I really don't see what your point is. Mandatory vs. optional FOC selections has nothing to do with how fluffy your list should be.

You don't understand my point despite quoting it?!?
There is nothing saying anything is mandatory beyond that HQ and two troop choices - just because you can take 9 quad mortars doen't mean you should. try using something else other than those 'best in slot' units for a change.

The problem with 'your way' of 'having fun' is that it's toxic to the way that most (nearly all) 'have fun'; we are in it for the fluff - that means we don't really care about winning or losing, it's what you're re-enacting that counts more than anything (it's why some people get 'funny' about mk8 marine armour)

And your way of playing is toxic to the kind of competitive game that other people want to have. Having different preferences is fine, even when those preferences conflict, but please stop assuming that your way of playing the game is somehow morally superior.

There is nothing toxic about the way everyone (apart from your gaming group) plays - it's quite healthy actually - evidenced by how poular the HH became without B@C reducing the price of tactical mk4 marines.

When looking at a force, you make some fluff for it, right? you said so yourself in your first post - so why does the primarch of a legion go out on patrol with a scouting party and happen to come accross another primarch on patrol with a scouting party?

Because the game is actually a "zoomed in" view of a larger battle, with the two primarchs and their elite bodyguards meeting in the middle with the intent of killing each other. See, that wasn't so hard to come up with!

Fair enough once, maybe twice with different primarchs, but every game?

Oh brilliant, you don't read what i write and then accuse me of not reading what you write - you didn't bother reading the books it's clear, because in book one has absolutely NOTHING on using the missions outside of a campain - i challenge you to find a quote that says so!

Of course there's no explicit quote, because FW assumes that their audience is smart enough to figure out that they can use the army lists and missions as single games, even if they aren't explicitly given permission to do so. That's why the book gives you a general space marine army list for constructing your own forces, not simply a list of "historical" forces that you are to use in each mission. And you'll notice that most of the campaign missions are the same kind of "pick armies, roll on a random table to see deployment zones and mission objectives" games as found in normal 40k.

The underlined bits are the important ones here.
If you were doing one-off games it was your houserule, nothing more.
When book 1 referrs to 'battles in the age of darkness, the only battles in the age of darkness take place as part of a campaign as detailed by that book.

, if you want an implicit statement of "this is for general gaming", just look at page 183:

The following section details rules for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 set against the background of the dark and terrible wars of the Horus Heresy, along with a full army list for the Space Marine Legions as they were during the dying days of the Great Crusade.

That is the subtitle for the coversheet for the section titled 'Battles in the age of darkness & Space marine crusade army list', not a rule.

Note the following:

1) The rules are for playing games of Warhammer 40,000, not games of The Horus Heresy Campaign.

Book 1 betrayal page 143: "The Isstvan 3 campaign shown here is a narrative campaign system designed for use with the 6th edition rules of warhammer 40,000...."

It tells you you are using the rules, not playing a game of warhammer 40,000 as part of a campaign system.

2) The space marine army list is from the end of the Great Crusade, not just the Isstvan III battle, implying pretty clearly that it is meant for general 30k-era games.

What were the space marines doing before the Horus heresy? Oh yeah, there were part of 'the great crusade' and their forces were structured as such therefore calling it a 'great crusade' army list is technically correct, since alternative organisational and combat doctrine were deployed and used as a result of the horus heresy.
This was definitely changed later on though. (see earlier quotes from book 2)

And then we look at page 277, where we find the following:

... and if you are using the Isstvan III campaign ...

IF you are using it. This rather clearly implies that not using the campaign system is a normal and expected thing to do with the army list, otherwise there would be no need to mention a specific situation that comes up when using the campaign.

That is from Calleb Decima's profile on utilising the Ordo Reductor as an allied detachment for your loyalist marines - let me serve you the whole quote...

"Calleb Decima is an HQ choice for an Ordo Reductor allied detachment, and if you are using the Isstvan 3 campaign, this detachment may only be chosen by the Loyalist side"

First off, this was clearly written with the knowledge that an 'Isstvan 5 campaign system' was on its way next.
If we take your method of using the subtitle from the coversheet, the Ordo Reductor one says this...

"The following section contains rules for the forces of the titan legions and the Ordo Reductor of the Mechanicum as involved in the battle of Isstvan 3"

Ignoring your logic; an Ordo Reductor allied detachment couldn't be used as a primary detachment and furthermore - aren't the 40k allies matrix.

In short: everyone but you seems to have figured out that the 30k rules and army lists were meant to be used in general gaming, and that the narrative campaigns were just one way of using those rules, not the only or default way.

Maybe you should actually READ what i wrote earlier rather than skimming to pick a bit you could argue against - book two allowed the one-off games to be played with this little gem...

Book 2 page 162 paragraph 2: battles in the age of darkness is first and foremost intended to reflect the unremitting savagery, monumental scale and dark technologies at work in the titanic conflicts of the horus heresy in exciting tabletop games, but the rules and missions presented here can also be used to fight major battles of the 41st millenium as well, and players should feel free to adjust them, and utilise them in this manner as they see fit.


Quit showing up in a thread which is asking how to avoid powergaming to post about how you think powergaming is good and to be encouraged - it's off topic.


getting back on topic - i think that 'best in slot' mentality can only be mitigated by the person making the decision and the key point they need to consider is...

Book one, page 184 paragraph 4: ...so if you are intending to make use of the more unique and powerful units available, the only caveat is to ensure your opponent is okay with this beforehand (as a generality at least)

I whole heartedly agree with SirDonlad. The WAAC mentality is toxic to the overall community. The argument that players shouldn't whine about OP lists and instead should take the best list available is a poor one as it wrecks the scene for everyone. Instead of seeing 18 different legions with a wide subset of different lists, we end up with every player fielding a handful of netlists that just spam 3 or 4 units. The game becomes boring and the flavour of the HH is lost. The more players that adopt this mindset, the harder it becomes for fluffy players to enjoy games because their lists start getting stomped. The fluffy players give up on the game and the WAAC guys run the roost. 30k is designed for players who are willing to invest even more money and time into creating "historically" accurate lists. In my opinion 40k has never been designed for the ultra competitive and 30k even less so. If you just want to play optimal lists against other optimal lists, you can already do that in 40k. Why do you even want to play 30k at all if not for the fluff? It's virtually the same game only with more room for flavour in game that fits the established background. If you want generic netlists armies then why spend £70 per book for reams of fluff intended to inspire your army? Why spend twice as much on an army if you don't really care if it represents something from the HH? 40k fives you the option to make up a Chapter/Craftworld/Klan/Warband that can be whatever you want. 30k still gives you freedom but it's supposed to be guided by established history and flavour.
Of course there is nothing stopping you having fun however you want, just don't try and convince the rest of us that we're "doing it wrong" because we don't like being crushed by boring spam lists.

Hhaha this is just going back and forth now isn't it.

It comes down to what mentality a person has, seriously, some people get enjoyment just by performing the activity regardless of outcome, for others they get their enjoyment once they achieve the desired outcome (winning).

For example, since I started my Alpha Legion I am yet to win a single game of HH (I have come very close once). I don't get sad though, I use it as an opportunity to assess what worked and what didn't and change it up again! To others though they would have cracked the sads long before now.

I do thinks Fluff in HH plays a bigger roll, but this is also partially enforced with special units and Rites of War, encouraging people to play a legion in a certain way.

 SirDonlad wrote:
You don't understand my point despite quoting it?!?
There is nothing saying anything is mandatory beyond that HQ and two troop choices - just because you can take 9 quad mortars doen't mean you should. try using something else other than those 'best in slot' units for a change.

Yes, and nobody here is arguing that the rules require you to take 9 quad mortars. You made a true statement, but it doesn't have any apparent connection to the discussion here.

There is nothing toxic about the way everyone (apart from your gaming group) plays - it's quite healthy actually - evidenced by how poular the HH became without B@C reducing the price of tactical mk4 marines.

Only because you define "nothing toxic" as "my group enjoys it" and don't seem to care if you're excluding other potential players from your group. Ignoring the potential harmful effects of your behavior does not mean that those effects go away.


As for the rest, I'm not going to dignify this absurd idea that playing 30k outside of a narrative campaign was some kind of house rule with any further responses. It's obvious nonsense, and trying to explain this to you is not accomplishing anything.

I only play for fluff. I still would like to win. Best games are the closest ones in winning/losing. Of course winning is better, but a 6-5 game is much better than a 10-1 arse stomping.

So for IWs I run 1 havac, 1 siege term, 1 sicaran and 1 scorpius in my Hvy slots. Always RoW because that is fluffy.

Im trying to firgure out where in the rules it says this is a fluffy game and you must play fluff

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im trying to firgure out where in the rules it says this is a fluffy game and you must play fluff

Welcome to human culture, where a lot of rules aren't written.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

And? The fact that a lot of players, even enough players for "general consensus" to be an appropriate description, have decided that competitive play is not welcome in their community does not change the fact that this "don't build powerful lists" rule is not found in the rulebook. It's nothing more than personal opinions about how to have fun the right way, combined with a bizarre need to declare that other people are having fun the wrong way..

War gaming is a inherently social activity. I think you'll find that general consensus matters quite a bit.

And yes, if someone is having fun in a way that bums everyone else out, they're utterly within their rights to say it's the wrong kind of fun.

What you're arguing against is the idea that groups create their own rules, independent from rules you've arbitrarily selected as the final arbiter of the game.

So because some people have arbitarily decided it is a fluff based game, everyone must play it.
Im going to tell you something interesting. ALL LISTS ARE INHERANTLY FLUFFY.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
ALL LISTS ARE INHERANTLY FLUFFY.

Salamanders

HQ
1 seige breaker
TROOP
2 10-man tactical squads
ELITE
4 3x quad mortar support squads w/ phosphex + shatter shells
HEAVY SUPPORT + FAST ATTACK
2 fire raptors
3 medusas
LORD OF WAR
Typhon seige tank


not fluffy, not fun to play against, overall not a generally good time. It should be noted that this ISN'T a good example of a 'cheesy' list as it was thrown together in under 2 minutes and without the rule book on hand

So your saying the salamanders would never run those? Maybe they somehow got the short end of the stick and now what to perform a seige because their the only ones there.
Also, that list is illegal, Salamanders cant take posphex.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So your saying the salamanders would never run those? Maybe they somehow got the short end of the stick and now what to perform a seige because their the only ones there.
Also, that list is illegal, Salamanders cant take posphex.

You can't assume that your fellow players are idiots who will believe your nervous 'b-but it's fluffy!' when you bring your minmaxed mortar lists.

Your intent is obvious and it is somewhat insulting that you think it would not be, and at least where I play, the response to your list would accordingly be displeasure.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So because some people have arbitarily decided it is a fluff based game, everyone must play it.
Im going to tell you something interesting. ALL LISTS ARE INHERANTLY FLUFFY.

Only if you define "fluffy" as "plausible, given the fluff."

I think most casual players see fluffy lists as being representative of the background, meaning they strive to be typical, and not corner cases.

That sounds like their problem and their baggage about the game.

The difference for me is how much effort the player puts into the fluff and how often their list changes.

For example, a player who names all of their characters, picks what major battles their army list participated in (or at least was drawn up for if not deployed), and the like is awesome.

Furthermore, a player who says "This is Commander Asterion of the 6th Salamanders Siege Task Force" and keeps playing the same army for all of eternity is a fluff player.

If, next week, it is Commander Pasterion of the 6th Salamanders Dreadnought Talon, and the week after Commander Blasterion of the 6th Salamanders Veteran Company, then it's somewhat less fluffy imo. Especially if each new list looks like a fluff 'corner case.' Not every 6th Salamanders X was a corner case, so having one with a cool backstory is fluffy, having eighteen with barely two pence worth of effort is not.

In most cases, it is fairly easy to discern who cares and not.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That sounds like their problem and their baggage about the game.

Sounds like you need to go back to the ITC and play 40K wiht the min maxers and that is ok. Some people want to curb stomp people to get off , some people want the hardest possible competition and some people just want to hang out and play for fun . Which entails not dropping pant to measure "sizes" or pocket books or EGOs.

Most 30k plays came to 30k because 'for fun" 40k players are hard to find. All those min max , new rules every other week lists.

This thread seems to be a perfect example of "agree to disagree."

There's no wrong way to play, unless that play impacts on the enjoyment of you or your opponent.

 Griddlelol wrote:
This thread seems to be a perfect example of "agree to disagree."

There's no wrong way to play, unless that play impacts on the enjoyment of you or your opponent.

The problem is, Fluff Players aren't likely to damage the fun of their opponent. There's nothing inherent about fluffiness that will impinge upon your opponent, at least not that I can think of (I certainly could be wrong!).

Competitive (or 'Best In Slot') players can, and oftentimes do, disrupt the fun fluff players like (such as narrative battles) with their casual disregard for the fluff.

I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Griddlelol wrote:I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Desubot wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Why does it suck as a competitive player to table someone on Turn 3? Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Griddlelol wrote:I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Desubot wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Why does it suck as a competitive player to table someone on Turn 3? Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

Why cant you understand the there are many different types of players in the world.
as well you realize the "objective" of the game is to win while the point is the have fun right?

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

It does, but I think it also depends on the context. If it's a tournament, it may not be a satisfying win, but at least it gives you time to get a drink/snack and rest up for the next round.

Everyplace I've ever gamed, pick up games were pretty explicitly "tournament prep" or not. You knew if your opponent was playing something they thought could compete, or if they were just playing a casual game.

When I was a competitive player, I always used the latter as an opportunity to play my JV squad, the units that never saw the table in competitive play.

But yes, there's little enjoyment on either side for a well tuned tournament army to table a fluff bunny list, which is why a quick chat can resolve so much.

Play a substandard list, play down points, or play a weighted scenario where the casual player has the advantage. It can be a lot of fun, trust me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

Because for a lot of players, winning only matters if they earn it. Some guys are just TFG, looking to push around kids and club baby seals. But a lot of people really see 40k as something worth competing in, to play against the best and become the best. There's no glory in winning a one sided fight.

It's winning games that matters, it's overcoming challenges.

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Griddlelol wrote:I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Desubot wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Why does it suck as a competitive player to table someone on Turn 3? Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

Why cant you understand the there are many different types of players in the world.
as well you realize the "objective" of the game is to win while the point is the have fun right?

I do realize that - in fact, if you read earlier in the thread, I said exactly those words.

So, here's my opinion:

If the objective of the game is to win but the goal is to have fun, then you can play two fluffy lists against each other and have fun while trying, in-game, to win.

If you want to win, then you should be fine with tabling your opponent by turn 3: You won! Hooray!

If you'd rather have fun some other way, then just play a fluffy list and that's much less likely to happen.

Ergo, either you should enjoy tabling your opponent by Turn 3 or your list is too strong and you should nerf it, if you want to have fun.

I would like to play fluffy as possible, but I would also like to have some sort of chance and unfortunately, many of the people at my local gw like to play the strongest units they can.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


If the objective of the game is to win but the goal is to have fun, then you can play two fluffy lists against each other and have fun while trying, in-game, to win.

If you want to win, then you should be fine with tabling your opponent by turn 3: You won! Hooray!

If you'd rather have fun some other way, then just play a fluffy list and that's much less likely to happen.

Ergo, either you should enjoy tabling your opponent by Turn 3 or your list is too strong and you should nerf it, if you want to have fun.

Why cant it be both.

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


If the objective of the game is to win but the goal is to have fun, then you can play two fluffy lists against each other and have fun while trying, in-game, to win.

If you want to win, then you should be fine with tabling your opponent by turn 3: You won! Hooray!

If you'd rather have fun some other way, then just play a fluffy list and that's much less likely to happen.

Ergo, either you should enjoy tabling your opponent by Turn 3 or your list is too strong and you should nerf it, if you want to have fun.

Why cant it be both.

Because, as I illustrated earlier, it is more of an imposition on the fluff player to play a competitive army than the competitive player to play a fluffy army, unless his only priority is winning, in which case he should be perfectly happy with beating the snot out of a fluff player.

And if winning only matters when it is earned, then play a subpar list and earn it!

I think this thread has hit it's limit. It's just going around in circles.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because, as I illustrated earlier, it is more of an imposition on the fluff player to play a competitive army than the competitive player to play a fluffy army, unless his only priority is winning, in which case he should be perfectly happy with beating the snot out of a fluff player.

It really hasn't been illustrated. A fluff player playing against a competitive player has to make changes to their army or lose an unenjoyable game, while a competitive player playing against a fluff player has to make changes or win an unenjoyable game (assuming they don't enjoy a one-sided massacre of an opponent who can't fight back). Both players have to make changes, which means buying and painting new models, playing with stuff that you don't want to use for the sake of balance, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is, Fluff Players aren't likely to damage the fun of their opponent. There's nothing inherent about fluffiness that will impinge upon your opponent, at least not that I can think of (I certainly could be wrong!).

Sure they are. If you bring your fluffy* army and I bring my tournament army you're damaging my fun. I'm not going to enjoy wiping you off the table in 1-2 turns while you fail to put up a fight because of how badly you've built your army. It's just a slightly less blatant version of making us go through all the work of setting up a game and immediately conceding defeat and packing up before any dice are rolled.

*Where "fluffy" often means "weak", not "follows the background fiction". I've seen a lot of players claim to have "fluffy" armies that were just random piles of units with no apparent attempt to tell a story or fit the established background fiction. Taking a sniper rifle, a grenade launcher, a melta gun, and a flamer in one squad is not "fluffy", it's just a bad strategy.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure they are. If you bring your fluffy* army and I bring my tournament army you're damaging my fun. I'm not going to enjoy wiping you off the table in 1-2 turns while you fail to put up a fight because of how badly you've built your army.

Is it badly built if it perfectly fills its purpose?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


*Where "fluffy" often means "weak", not "follows the background fiction". I've seen a lot of players claim to have "fluffy" armies that were just random piles of units with no apparent attempt to tell a story or fit the established background fiction. Taking a sniper rifle, a grenade launcher, a melta gun, and a flamer in one squad is not "fluffy", it's just a bad strategy.

Well yes, that does not sound either fluffy or competetive, so I doubt it is what anyone means.

FWIW, even my typical Word Bearers list, which can look something like

Special character
Consul, usually Chaplain

Gal Vorbak

2x20 Tactical Squads

Contemptor Mortis
Sicaran


Is quite fluffy in my opinion, reasonably good, and will still get utterly destroyed by a quad mortar Typhon list.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because, as I illustrated earlier, it is more of an imposition on the fluff player to play a competitive army than the competitive player to play a fluffy army, unless his only priority is winning, in which case he should be perfectly happy with beating the snot out of a fluff player.

It really hasn't been illustrated. A fluff player playing against a competitive player has to make changes to their army or lose an unenjoyable game, while a competitive player playing against a fluff player has to make changes or win an unenjoyable game (assuming they don't enjoy a one-sided massacre of an opponent who can't fight back). Both players have to make changes, which means buying and painting new models, playing with stuff that you don't want to use for the sake of balance, etc.

That's true, but the competitive player can do so easier. It's always easier to pull punches than to get stronger, and there are ways to play beyond even points.

From a utilitarian standpoint, a competitive player can make a few changes, or play a different mission type, and still have a challenging game. A purely casual player is never going to provide a challenging tournament game.

The distinction I noted earlier is that the fluff player isn't going to ruin anyone's fun by playing fluff lists, but the competitive player can ruin people's fun by playing competitively.

If you say that the fluff player ruins your fun by not providing a challenge, then I would say you should also play a fluff list, which is both challenging AND aligns with the background.

Heck, if you actually want a challenge, play a worse list than your opponent and it will be very challenging indeed to win!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And a random smattering of incoherent weapons and units isn't fluffy, it is just bad, unless your opponent is playing Blackshields or Outcasts or Shattered Legions, but even so, organizing the weapons into dedicated squads is fluffier (they just might have a limited amount).

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
You don't understand my point despite quoting it?!?
There is nothing saying anything is mandatory beyond that HQ and two troop choices - just because you can take 9 quad mortars doen't mean you should. try using something else other than those 'best in slot' units for a change.

Yes, and nobody here is arguing that the rules require you to take 9 quad mortars. You made a true statement, but it doesn't have any apparent connection to the discussion here.

The Original post was about how to avoid just taking the 'best in slot' and you can't see how my statement about strong units not being compulsory has a connection to the discussion?!
I suggest you find a powergaming forum or make a powergaming thread - your 'input' here is off topic from start to finish.

There is nothing toxic about the way everyone (apart from your gaming group) plays - it's quite healthy actually - evidenced by how poular the HH became without B@C reducing the price of tactical mk4 marines.

Only because you define "nothing toxic" as "my group enjoys it" and don't seem to care if you're excluding other potential players from your group. Ignoring the potential harmful effects of your behavior does not mean that those effects go away.

No, i define 'nothing toxic' as "doesn't force the opponent to adopt the same playstyle" because that dictates how you can 'have fun'; there is only one way to 'have fun' against power players - power playing.
Playing a fluffy list accepts the opposition for whatever it happens to be and stipulates nothing in playstyle - the enjoyment comes from seeing two armies play out a story of the epic struggle of the horus heresy; that may be an ambush where one force is 'hard countered' sometimes.
Having a 'best in slot' list looks weird on the table - this is the horus heresy; there should be masses of marines with elite/heavy/fast units dotted around the line.

I think you haven't considered your own argument against your own attitude - "ignoring the potential harmful effects of your behaviour" sums your attitude up to a tee.

As for the rest, I'm not going to dignify this absurd idea that playing 30k outside of a narrative campaign was some kind of house rule with any further responses. It's obvious nonsense, and trying to explain this to you is not accomplishing anything.

Except that this was exactly the case when the first book got released - i've proved that using quotes from the book earlier in the thread, you were skimming to find something to argue against and didn't see them.
I also showed where in the second book it was officially allowed earlier in the thread which you also skimmed past.

Maybe you really should try not taking the 'best in slot' if you're looking for a challenge? common sense i thought...

 SirDonlad wrote:
Playing a fluffy list accepts the opposition for whatever it happens to be and stipulates nothing in playstyle

Having a 'best in slot' list looks weird on the table - this is the horus heresy; there should be masses of marines with elite/heavy/fast units dotted around the line.

So, playing fluffy simultaneously doesn't impose any requirements and requires you to follow certain principles of list construction. Do you honestly not see the contradiction here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The distinction I noted earlier is that the fluff player isn't going to ruin anyone's fun by playing fluff lists, but the competitive player can ruin people's fun by playing competitively.

And, as I pointed out, this is not true. The fluff player absolutely can ruin things for a competitive opponent. In fact, they can also ruin things for other fluff players, since fluffy lists can also be very powerful and/or hard to deal with for other fluff lists. And they can really ruin things when they cross the line from "here's my fluff list" to "you'd better follow my rules for list construction".

If you say that the fluff player ruins your fun by not providing a challenge, then I would say you should also play a fluff list, which is both challenging AND aligns with the background.

Why is it the competitive player's job to buy, build, and paint additional models to make the game more even? Why should they have to put up with the annoyance of having to take units they don't want, while their opponent can do whatever they feel like? Why doesn't the "fluff" player have a similar obligation to spend time and money? After all, you could say the following:

If you say that the competitive player ruins your fun by providing too much of a challenge, then I would say you should also play a competitive list, which is both challenging AND allows you to explore new parts of the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Is it badly built if it perfectly fills its purpose?

Obviously there's a "from a competitive point of view" implied there. But it doesn't seem to be fulfilling its purpose very well, since its player isn't happy with the outcome of the game.

Well yes, that does not sound either fluffy or competetive, so I doubt it is what anyone means.

You doubt it, but I've seen that kind of attitude over and over again. Someone boasts about their "fluffy" list, and when you look at it it's just a pile of random units and upgrades. But somehow it's assumed to be "fluffy", because lists are either fluffy or competitive and it clearly isn't competitive.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The distinction I noted earlier is that the fluff player isn't going to ruin anyone's fun by playing fluff lists, but the competitive player can ruin people's fun by playing competitively.

And, as I pointed out, this is not true. The fluff player absolutely can ruin things for a competitive opponent. In fact, they can also ruin things for other fluff players, since fluffy lists can also be very powerful and/or hard to deal with for other fluff lists. And they can really ruin things when they cross the line from "here's my fluff list" to "you'd better follow my rules for list construction".

All you pointed out earlier is that a competitive opponent might not like tabling their opponent on Turn 3, which I thought was odd, considering competitive players seem to think winning is fun. The fluff player vs fluff player argument is another talk for a different time, but yes, I won't deny disparities exist. We can start a new thread about the perils of matching up different fluff lists if you'd like. And I'm not arguing you have to follow my rules for list construction - I am just saying that a competitive scene is more poisonous for fluff play than a fluff scene is for competitive play, so the latter should be encouraged.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you say that the fluff player ruins your fun by not providing a challenge, then I would say you should also play a fluff list, which is both challenging AND aligns with the background.

Why is it the competitive player's job to buy, build, and paint additional models to make the game more even? Why should they have to put up with the annoyance of having to take units they don't want, while their opponent can do whatever they feel like? Why doesn't the "fluff" player have a similar obligation to spend time and money? After all, you could say the following:

If you say that the competitive player ruins your fun by providing too much of a challenge, then I would say you should also play a competitive list, which is both challenging AND allows you to explore new parts of the fluff.

Because the fluff player doesn't actually care about challenge or winning. Me personally, I love seeing my fluffy list on the table, and I feel an attachment to the faction I play. The Centurio Ordinatus has limited options, however, on the tabletop, so 'exploring new parts of the fluff' just means leaving my faction behind, which defeats the purpose of choosing an army I like in the first place.

And you're not [forced] to buy extra models if you just approach the game from a fluffy mindset in the first place - but if you dive into a game as background-intensive as 30k and then complain when you roflstomp all the fluff players because it isn't "challenging" enough, then I'm sure you can find something to do where you win with a good challenge.