Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When did it stop being ok to play for fun but still take a good list. People seem to have an impression that if your army list includes things like 4 mechvet vendettas that you don't play for fun? Why is that? I put a lot of time and money into my DKoK guard and those vendettas (with magnetized weapons!!!) and to be accused of not playing for fun because i take good lists seems off to me.

I personally just don't understand this phenomenon, when did it become unsportsmanlike to take good units? I like air-cav it offers great tactical flexibility and high risk/reward situations. Is it good, of course it is, is it un-beatable? Far from it. I don't like playing Gun line static guard its boring for me. So i would just like an explanation as to why theirs this mentality of if you play for fun you list must also suck.

Depends on the list. IF you play full Air-Cav, you should be sacrificing certain units, like Leman Russ Battle Tanks.

If you do this, you are playing to a theme and thats all good by me. But when your list is built more around winning the game than enjoying the game, you've gone wrong somewhere in my opinion.

I have a pretty tasty Savage Orc list, and everything in it is Savage and Frenzied. It's a challenge to use, a challenge to play against, and pretty much unique. I also have a nasty arsed Dark Elf monster list, which I've been playing since 2003. Sadly this one isn't quite as unique as it used to be, given the boost the Hydra received. But as long as I enjoy the game as much as my opponent, we both win.

So it's more about the player than the list. There is nothing more annoying than someone claiming outright tactical superiority when all they have done is take the hardest list possible, and then bend, quibble and bitch about the rules throughout the game.

Red_Lives wrote:I personally just don't understand this phenomenon, when did it become unsportsmanlike to take good units?

Because 40k has inherent imbalances, and we all know roughly what they are.

It's not unsportsmanlike to take a good list, but if you know that a certain combination is unbeatable (or near enough) then, in a fun (friendly) game, you'd be unsportsmanlike to take it. Another way, beating your opponent is fine, playing to win is fine, but if you don't even give your opponent a chance, that's unsportsmanlike, as you're not making the game fun. 40k is as much about co-operating as competing...

The usual argument against this goes along the lines of "Well, your opponent should take an unbeatable list too, then". Thing is, this doesn't take into account personal preferences, favourite models, fluff or background. That's why it gets such a bad rep...

ArbitorIan wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:I personally just don't understand this phenomenon, when did it become unsportsmanlike to take good units?

Because 40k has inherent imbalances, and we all know roughly what they are.

The usual argument against this goes along the lines of "Well, your opponent should take an unbeatable list too, then". Thing is, this doesn't take into account personal preferences, favourite models, fluff or background. That's why it gets such a bad rep...

I think that's the real issue here. People knowingly taking a sub-par list because they like the fluff behind it then getting angry that their "fluffy" list got stomped on. I'm not saying that they should only play strong lists/units but they have no right to be irritated, they knowingly took units that well...suck then losing with them.

I didn't play Guard before the new codex, i didn't like the play style. I like fast moving armies (white scars, Blood Angles, mech Tau) but when aircav guard came out i was all over that.

Red_Lives wrote:When did it stop being ok to play for fun but still take a good list.

I think it stopped being OK when the player taking the good list "for fun" kept using it to beat the living hell out of an opponent with no chance to win and little chance to draw.

"Fun" notionally is for both players, so if taking a good list and playing it balls to the wall means the opponent isn't having fun, then maybe somebody should reconsider their list, tactics, or human decency.

I said good list not cheese list, there is a difference.

Whatever.

The point is that playing a game is a cooperative endeavor between both players to have fun. When the game takes takes a turn that isn't fun, something's wrong.

People who make good lists kill babies and light people on fire!

Brought to you by the Casual Gaming Mafia
"Our Way is the Only Way!"

I honestly don't know what the fuss is all about. I make tough, hard as nails lists in casual games. But then so do my opponents. It would be disrespectful to do anything less since we all enjoy beating our opponents through a mix of superior tactics, deployment etc. Admittedly in a pick up game I would probably hold off on the nidzilla list I run, but I wouldn't bring a sub par list just for the fun of it.

Of course our gaming group all occasionally bring out the fluffy lists, but it's really just to take the edge off every now and again.

Red_Lives wrote:When did it stop being ok to play for fun but still take a good list. People seem to have an impression that if your army list includes things like 4 mechvet vendettas that you don't play for fun?

Red_Lives wrote:I put a lot of time and money into my DKoK guard and those vendettas (with magnetized weapons!!!) and to be accused of not playing for fun because i take good lists seems off to me.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:There is nothing more annoying than someone claiming outright tactical superiority when all they have done is take the hardest list possible, and then bend, quibble and bitch about the rules throughout the game.

Red_Lives wrote:I personally just don't understand this phenomenon, when did it become unsportsmanlike to take good units? So i would just like an explanation as to why theirs this mentality of if you play for fun you list must also suck.

JohnHwangDD wrote:if taking a good list and playing it balls to the wall means the opponent isn't having fun, then maybe somebody should reconsider their list, tactics, or human decency.

Red_Lives wrote:I said good list not cheese list, there is a difference.

The GW Hobby folks.

Good lists... cheese lists... background lists....

that's always a theme of interest and a discussed one. I've heard many times, from different people, what is and what is not a BG or cheese list and it depends from the point of view.

I'm not good at playing, I loose 95% of the games (yep I suck, and I play form 2002/2003) but I always try to follow the background of the chapter or regiment I try to represent.

Main problem is that usually people play to win (obviously in most cases) and rarely to just have fun. To have a good list balanced with the BG, you should talk with your friend and ask for a game like that. Probably one of the two will have a hard time playing or perhaps both but ... well... if you play with a BG list none should have problem and have fun.

Talking about good lists and BG lists, in the tournament we're having in my city, a guy is using Death Guard, 4 tactical squads, two Daemon Prince and one squad of Chosens. I consider that a BG list more or less and I like it... everything he has goes between 12'' and 24'' inches maximum and in a tournament that is a big problem.

In a casual environment, I have no problem with my opponents playing a "good" list. I think I would have a problem if they played a tourney spam list of some sort, but I, as a player, would have less fun knowing that you were dumbing down your list because it was a casual game.

However, no one likes to be stomped into the ground. It's not fun for the opponent, and isn't for me either. I'm very new to the game (only started 3 months ago), but I got into it because I'm an avid boardgame player and a recovering M:tG addict. M:tG was no longer fun for me because I couldn't play casual games. Everything was preparation for the next tourney. That's what I love about 40k, my play group isn't into tourneys, so most of our games are story driven and fun for all.

If your opponent isn't having fun because he is losing, and he has a fighting chance of winning, my suggestion would be to discuss tactics with him. That's one thing that my playgroup does all the time. When one of us loses, our opponent will almost always give advice and tactics on how to improve the next time. All in all, it makes a much better gaming environment for all.

I think the real fault lies with GW. If they made units more equally effective, we wouldn't have this problem. People could take whatever they like from a Codex, choose units based on aesthetics or background or theme or style of play, and still have a good chance of making an effective list.

Having said that, I think players need to recognise the power balance problems and show some respect for their opponents's situation. If you are playing against someone who has also designed a strong list, then no problem. However, if your opponent is fielding a fluffy list, and your 'good' list pounds them into the dirt, then absolutely I think they have a right to be peeved. In this situation, fielding certain units with the intention of getting a tactical advantage is a bit unsporting. Even if the other guy isn't in it for the win, he still wants and deserves a fighting chance. Players with a 'design to win' attitude limit the choice of other players, effectively denying them a fair fight unless they buy, construct and paint units they don't really want. The fault lies with GW, so often makign the coolest stuff the weakest, but as gamers enjoying a battle together we can and should endeavour to redress the issue of fairness. I understand that you haven't made an unbeatable list, so you have shown some consideration, but if you really are in it for fun and not 'the win', that implies that you appreciate fluff, aesthetics etc. So why not choose units based on these factors, instead of tactical advantage? You would still have a fair chance of winning if your opponent's list is fluffy, and you may get something more out of collecting.

I don't mean this to sound accusing or adversarial. I am genuinely curious, and trying to show you the other side's point of view.

I personally bring my tournament lists to any game.

I don't usually waste my money on crap models or bad lists.
Why would I dumb my list down for a player? That would be "unfun" for me. Most of my casual games I actually want to use to get better at this hobby.

Why would I want to play a game where I just push some stuff around and roll some dice?


Also, 40k doesn't have any unbeatable lists so there is absolutely no reason to ever call cheese.

Timmah wrote:Why would I want to play a game where I just push some stuff around and roll some dice?

Because, sometimes, it's more about who you're playing with, then the actual result?

Much of this depends on the culture of your FLGS.

I knew one shop that was all about fluff and themed armies. Imagine, if you will, ten gamers on a Saturday night all playing 1500 point armies that resemble the examples from a codex. Hardly anyone played tournaments and when the shop itself ran tournaments their was a comp. system in place. The games were fun and if you chanced in on a Friday night you might see a unit of Flash Gitz fighting a unit of Rough Riders. When a competitive tournament player moved into the area and showed up with a dual lash list no one wanted to play him. "Why can't I get a game?" he asked. "Because you'll beat most of our lists without breaking a sweat," came the response.

In contrast, down the road was another FLGS that had a competitive culture. All the typical power-lists were represented and if someone consistently got his ass handed to them the regulars helped the loser strengthen his list to make it more competitive.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Timmah wrote:Why would I want to play a game where I just push some stuff around and roll some dice?

Because, sometimes, it's more about who you're playing with, then the actual result?

Obviously if I am teaching someone the game or something I would dumb down my lists and add in a large variety of units for the first couple games.

But against any established 40k player why should I need to? They know what I am bringing, if they don't want to play me, that is fine.

I don't understand why people think they have to bring bad lists in order to have "fun". And you can't have fun with good/"cheese" lists.

Again, as the poster above you notes, it depends on who you're playing with and what the unwritten rules are where you're playing.

Personally, playing Fluff / theme lists is easier & cheaper, as you don't constantly have to chase the latest cheese at additional cost. You simply play mediocre lists against other mediocre lists all the time while you kick back, shoot the breeze, have some snacks, and drink your beer.

Red_Lives wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:I personally just don't understand this phenomenon, when did it become unsportsmanlike to take good units?

Because 40k has inherent imbalances, and we all know roughly what they are.

The usual argument against this goes along the lines of "Well, your opponent should take an unbeatable list too, then". Thing is, this doesn't take into account personal preferences, favourite models, fluff or background. That's why it gets such a bad rep...

I think that's the real issue here. People knowingly taking a sub-par list because they like the fluff behind it then getting angry that their "fluffy" list got stomped on. I'm not saying that they should only play strong lists/units but they have no right to be irritated, they knowingly took units that well...suck then losing with them.

Because only "winners" should play Warhammer right?

You think you're a "winner" don't you?

Samus666 wrote: Players with a 'design to win' attitude limit the choice of other players, effectively denying them a fair fight unless they buy, construct and paint units they don't really want.

Double standard here. Why are the people that enjoy playing harder lists bullied into having to 'buy, construct and paint units they don't really want' when it is considered a bad thing that the fluff-gamers would have to do that?

skyth wrote:

Samus666 wrote: Players with a 'design to win' attitude limit the choice of other players, effectively denying them a fair fight unless they buy, construct and paint units they don't really want.

Double standard here. Why are the people that enjoy playing harder lists bullied into having to 'buy, construct and paint units they don't really want' when it is considered a bad thing that the fluff-gamers would have to do that?

they're not. They can go join the Wrecking Crew

The real issue is communication. If you don't communicate with your opponent what they expect out of the game, you're going to have some hurt feelings.

And by the way, there is no right or wrong way to play 40k. It doesn't make you a bad person for fielding a hard list and playing a tough game any more than it doesn't make you a good person for playing a fluff list and being too nice.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

"Fun" notionally is for both players,

Sorry, I dont go and buy an army, build it, paint it, work on my list and tactics for someone elses entertainment.

It is not "notionally" for both players, that is your biased opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Personally, playing Fluff / theme lists is easier & cheaper

Its also easier to point the finger of blame if you lost.

I have found a lot of players dont try their hardest so they can blame their opponent when they lose.

olympia wrote:

In contrast, down the road was another FLGS that had a competitive culture. All the typical power-lists were represented and if someone consistently got his ass handed to them the regulars helped the loser strengthen his list to make it more competitive.

See to me this seems a much more noble or honorable system. Its about getting better and becoming better, not smashing your opponent as the people who play 40k as if they were action figures might say.

@PanamaG,

It's a LOT more than just my opinion

As Jervis himself states: "Winning at any cost is less important than making sure that both players - not just the victor - have a good time."

Interesting.


Read these (The YTTH is more of a rant but you have to sift through it, the 2nd is my argument) - http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/10/competitive-vs-fun.html and http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is taking a hardcore list not having fun?

Is it my fault you restricted yourself with your fluffy list while I did not? Should I be taken outside and beaten with a stick because I like to play to win? I don't have to tailor to YOUR definition of "fun". I like playing a "fluffy" list as much as the next guy, but prepare.

Truely it bother me when something occurs.

Scenario: Scrub (Player A, whose definition of scrub we will define later) takes a stealer shock army. Fluffy - Yes. Competitive - No.
Player B takes a Vulcan army with all the fixings. Its' a lean mean fighting machine!

Now, let's just define scrub and get this over with. A Scrub is someone who knowingly sets mental / physical / army (for 40k) limits on themselves and expects other players to follow along their same guidelines. If you do not, you are a cheesy player who is just out to Min/Max and WAAC, and you are a Noob!

Now, Scrub A and Player B go at it and Scrub A gets his @$$ rolled. Player B is a friendly guy and goes along with the game but doesn't hold back. Scrub A, after the game, complains about Player B's list saying it's cheesy and that "He is a noob and takes special characters because he's a noob and his army is unfluffy and nooby".

Where in this scenario did player A become game master and decide who was what and what was what? How is taking an army that exemplifies no weaknesses cheesy or nooby? So you're saying that becasue YOU think that I should player by YOUR rules that I am being WAAC power gamer because YOU didn't decide to build a strong list.

You KNOWINGLY set restrictions on yourself and think that because I didn't and I try to optimize what I have because I play to win (like everyone shouled!) that I am being cheesy and unfair and not having fun.

What is wrong with this?

I am not being cheesy or nooby or not trying to have fun, fun is winning. Not WAAC. Just playing to win. Because I roll your army using my armies tactica and because I am a superior general (let's say) am I a noob? No. Your a scrub for setting an imaginary boundery on yourself and not allowing yourself to play to win.

You can't expect everyone to have this same attitude as you. Some people think "Well you can't take Eldrad in your force! HE IS ULTHWE! YOU ARE A CHEATING NOOB!". Where in the book did it say I HAD to be Ulthwe to take this character? Where. Nowhere. He fits my army so I took him.

Same goes for characters like Vulcan and Shrike and other characters. I take them for a purpose.

This is actually an online guide I read recently. It talkes about Street Fighter (some of you may have heard of this article) and how people would try and execute massive combos and try and restrict themselves to pulling off "SWEET STUFF" and when he would throw them 5 times (you can't block throw) and he would win, they would call him a scrub and a NOOB because he beat them using something they saw as CHEAP!

How is it cheap. It's something built into the game. Are you cheating? No. Are you misusing anything? No. It is in there are it can be used.

The lesson here is that if you play by rules that you set for yourself, NEVER expect people to follow them and prepare for the fact that other people will build lists that are very powerful and you may not have a good chance to beat them because you limited yourself while they did not.

No list has loopholes. Get the $*#& over it people. It is in the rules, you follow the rules right? So get the hell over it that someone is using the rules to their advantage, because they are still playing within your rules.

Should I cry YOUR A WAAC GAMER YOU ARE USING WOUND ALLOCATION! Because some other people use Wound Allocation to their advantage? No, because wound allocation IS IN THE RULES! Everyone, EVERYONE is abusing it to your definition! It's a rule, everyone uses it, how is it unfair when someone uses it?

I'll be looking up that article because it proves a great point.... EDIT: Found it, it's at the beginning.

EzeKK wrote:Where in this scenario did player A become game master and decide who was what and what was what?

What is wrong with this?

Yay, a WAAC player tries to defend himself using Sirlin. Bear in mind that playing Street Fighter 2 is a strictly competitive contest with a Zero-Sum result of 1 winner and 1 loser. Nowhere does SF2 have TMIR as guidance or mandate. 40k OTOH, has TMIR, and expects both players to play cooperatively so that both players have a good time. That means that rolling one's opponent in a "friendly" game is not acceptable.

To preserve TMIR or "the Spirit of the Game", Player B actually should have held back so that both player would have an enjoyable result. I've deliberately done this under occasion, and turned what would have been an unenjoyable rout into an enjoyable draw. In the process, I got to see a few more things about my army.

And, as Sirlin himself states:

David Sirlin wrote:“playing to win” at all times is counter-productive

Very often in “casual play” I will forgo the safe option in order to try possible counters to certain moves. Even if I lose a game when a possible counter turns out not to work, the knowledge gained is well worth it

The Karmic justice of it all is that love of the game really does count for something. Those who love the game play it to play it. They mess around. They pick strange characters, try strange tactics, face others who do the same, and they learn the secret knowledge. Those who play only to win can’t be bothered with any of that.

So, the real question is what sort of game both players agreed to play in your example. If this wasn't a Tournament situation, then TMIR stands as a rule that both players are bound by to the exclusion of all else - that would be "most important" part in The Most Important Rule. Given that Player A brought a soft list, and you say Player B was "friendly", then one may conclude that there was supposed to be a friendly game with nothing on the line. When the WAAC player brought his hardcore list and rolled his opponent, he broke TMIR.

I'm actually not a WAAC player by any means.

My lists aren't soft, but I knowingly don't make them WAAC. Here's my most recent Eldar army @ 1k.

Farseer – 80
Doom

Dire Avengers – 60
5x

Falcon – 170
Holofields; EML

Dire Avengers – 60
5x

Wave Serpent w/ TL SCAT – 100

Falcon – 170
Holofields; EML

Pathfinders – 120
5x

Pathfinders – 120
5x

Fire Prism – 115


No Fire Dragons, no Seer Council, and Pathfinders for the Alaitoc theme. It also isn't uber-fluffy with gurdians and the like, but it's not the meanest either. It's a solid mix IMHO (leaning towards more nasty because of the 4 grav-tanks I will admit).

I'll have to argue that a Warhammer game is 1 winner 1 loser (apart from a tie rofl ;D).

I have also heald back during occasion. I did so once with a WAAC-esk tourney list I made using Eldar (seer council + FD yay!) because I didn't mean to bring it and I faced a newbey.

Now, enough on defending myself
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But truthfully I am NOT trying to defend the WAAC player. I am trying to defend the perceived WAAC "themed" lists. Under no circumstance did I mean to convey that WAAC players are OK.

Now in a tournament I fully expect to see these people and I would say I am a pesudo one (I will use all the rules I know to my advantage, but I will not do things like *for the Dark Angels for instance* abuse the Narthicium Reductor and ignore the 1st failed cover save of my vehicle because of GW's poor writing skills.)

For "Friendly" games I would have to say that Stelek (surprisingly) is a good example of bringing a pseudo-WAAC "themed" list. He has some bad-reps with a non-friendly list going more "easy" and even losing to a clearly sup-par list.

Now, I won't EVER defend a WAAC gamer, but no list should be perceived as WAAC just because someone built a list using the rules, which is what I think.

Also, you shouldn't be criticised about wanting to win a game, if two opponents play and one doesn't want to win and the othe does, how is it unfair or WAAC of the other player to beat him? If two people play and one guy has a very good list, the other crap, and the very good list still wins and the bad player learned from the good player some tips and trick as to what he did wrong, did the bad player not have fun?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@PanamaG,

It's a LOT more than just my opinion

As Jervis himself states: "Winning at any cost is less important than making sure that both players - not just the victor - have a good time."

Nope it's still just an opinion.

I dont care what Jervis says. I am certainly not going to throw a game as you have suggested. That is more insulting to yourself and your opponent than tabling him with no loss of VPs!

Yay...how rousing...a game where its just a draw because no one really puts in any effort. Weee!!!!

By the way, TMIR isnt a gameplay mechanic rule. SF2 could have TMIR placed on it, and it would be about as boring as 40k with TMIR imposed. Its oppressive.

You think "win at all costs" (or people who play competitively, not people who cheat, since you refuse to recognize a difference) games are boring. You have to be lying. That is like saying a SF2 game that is full out, no holds barred is boring while a game where players pull punches and play for a draw is exciting?

You have to be trolling.

PanamaG wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@PanamaG,

It's a LOT more than just my opinion

As Jervis himself states: "Winning at any cost is less important than making sure that both players - not just the victor - have a good time."

Nope it's still just an opinion.

I dont care what Jervis says. I am certainly not going to throw a game as you have suggested. That is more insulting to yourself and your opponent than tabling him with no loss of VPs!

Yay...how rousing...a game where its just a draw because no one really puts in any effort. Weee!!!!

By the way, TMIR isnt a gameplay mechanic rule. SF2 could have TMIR placed on it, and it would be about as boring as 40k with TMIR imposed. Its oppressive.

I have to also agree with this. Throwing away a game is just about as fun as shooting yourself in the leg sometimes.

Its offensive to your opponent, it really is. It denies him a chance to learn from his mistakes.

I dont get it period. As I said this guy has to be trolling.