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.

I've been hearing about this term for years and I have yet to actually understand why people insist there army lists are sometimes "fun lists". I actually do not know what that means. Why not make an effective list that works. Wargaming is naturally competitive and when someone makes a "fun list" they are pretty much asking to get slapped around on the table. Do people have some sort of thing against losing in a competitive environment or something? Like if they lose, they can just fall back on the premise that their list was "fun", because fun lists just sound like an excuse to me. But then there is the argument that people want to play just for fun, um, so do I, but I like to win as well and not look like a fool. You can just as easily have as much fun with a fully competitive list as you would with a "fun list".

Sometimes people like to try something different that they wouldn't normally play.

And, honestly, I can understand why you don't understand it, because of this statement:

Wargaming is naturally competitive and when someone makes a "fun list" they are pretty much asking to get slapped around on the table

I, personally, disagree with that assessment.
Different mentalities, different outlooks. You come from the competitive side of things, I do not.
Not everybody has the same definition of fun and not everybody feels the need to be competitive (I sure as hell don't after a full week at work)

Have you used every entry/configuration in your codex?

People are talking about using stuff that's not, "Take best thing, copy a few times, win games."

I consider myself a "fun list" player. I base my armies on the background and what models I like.
I can't imagine running a spam army in anything other than a tourney because to me that doesn't seem like fun at all, with the exception of spamming orks in a mass green tide for lolz!!
I play with the intention to win, but I don't care about losing because I play this hobby to have fun, and I have a much more balanced and fluffy army out of it than if I only played competitive lists.

I suppose it all depends where you get your fun, for some people winning is everything, for me it's about having a laugh and creating a story with good looking armies

Dom

Sometimes people like playing an army/deck/list for their chosen game that they acknowledge as gimicky or lacking in a fundamental asset in order to do something more fringe or outright preposterous.

The terms "fun list" and "competitive" take on different meanings in GW games where the rules were not designed for high level competitive play and many options are imbalanced.

Ok, quick example.

Flash gitz.

Table - poor, over priced, out classed, and just plain useless.

Converting - A unit of nobz with as much wargear as you can throw on them, no real limits to what can be done with the model.

The idea of a "fun" list is to take units that you actually like the look of, rather than spamming the same choice multiple times because its a solid model/unit.

Oblits - Ugly arse models that only ever sell because of how good they are.
To a fun list, they are simply an eye sore and have no real selling point.


And i also dont really agree with the statement thats its an excuse for losing or a poor way of playing.
When someone plays a fun or themed list, they know its not going to be running at 100% like your average cookie cutter list, but they play it for amusement, rather than just to win.

Gaming tends to be 2 sections.

Competative gamers, who will simply spam whatever needs to be spammed to make the most from thier army.

Casual gamers, who play simply for the hell of playing it and having a laugh with friends.
Also, alot of painters and modellors tend to be more this way as it gives them a pretty good time at making an army how they want it. (Not saying all, but thats just from what ive seen, YMMV)

I enjoy playing competitively, but when you have played the exact same list fo rthe last 6+ months you feel like you want a change. That is where the fun lists come in. I once played a marine company at 2k it had ~95 marines. It was fun to throw it on the table.

Another good reason to take "fun" list is to self handicap. I may not go easy on the newer players, but if I take a less than optimal list I can play as hard as I want and I get a close game that is fun for both me and my opponent.

Well, anyone who clames they do not enjoy winning and does not play to win is lying i suspect. But there is a line between normally making a good effort to win when you playing and being hyper-competative or WAAC. There is a middle ground. For example i have three CSM armies that I never mix together. I always play mono-god armies even though I am well aware that the more effective/competative armies are mixed god. But i still build armies designed to have a chance at winning. (

So in a way Im playng fun armies that still stand a chance on the table without being WAAC.

I can't believe Jackal said Flash Gitz aren't a good unit. They are totally fantastic that work insanely well, if a bit inaccurate. I definitely like doing "fun" lists. They add so much enjoyment to life.

I take fun lists at times because I like to play thematic games. This is in friendlies against friends rather than pick up games again strangers, though. So played in an atmosphere of fun rather than competition.

Djdom wrote:
I can't imagine running a spam army in anything other than a tourney because to me that doesn't seem like fun at all, with the exception of spamming orks in a mass green tide for lolz!!

So in other words it's not really hard to imagine, you just have a preference for big infantry hordes. You just admitted you could have fun playing a spam list if it spammed stuff you wanted to use, so obviously it can't be just because it's "spam".

Personally I love vehicles, and I think tanks and flyers and crap are one of the only reasons to play 40k over any other game, because no other game really lets you do that: most games on the market are small, skirmish-sized games that push infantry almost entirely, with a mech thrown in here and there just to keep people from falling asleep while playing. So the fact that most competitive armies "spam" vehicles (or at least did in 5th) doesn't bother me in the slightest, for me it's one of the game's only redeeming factors and if you take that away I lose all interest in playing. Big, boring infantry hordes aren't "fun" for me, and if I wanted to play a game that focused mostly on infantry there are several other games I could play that are not only better-written, but much cheaper to play. And in Infinity's case, have better models.

Nothing makes vehicle "spam" armies any less fun to play than your "green tide" list (and both are equally valid from a "fluffy" standpoint as well), it's all personal preference. Nothing is just inherently "more fun" to play.

Djdom wrote:
I play with the intention to win, but I don't care about losing because I play this hobby to have fun, and I have a much more balanced and fluffy army out of it than if I only played competitive lists.

I suppose it all depends where you get your fun, for some people winning is everything, for me it's about having a laugh and creating a story with good looking armies

Dom

This bothers me, the assumption that for competitive players "winning is everything", or that they somehow care more about losing than other people do. It's just plain not true. Also, there are some really strange ideas in this community about "balance" when talking about lists, it would seem. Balanced lists are lists that are capable of handling anything you throw at them, which arguably most competitive lists are capable of doing, and almost entirely by the virtue of "spamming" similar units. The idea is that your army doesn't completely fall apart and lose the ability to deal with vehicles or flyers or what have you by losing a single unit, because there are more to take its place. It actually sounds like a pretty sensible way to build an army to me, but I guess no one else thinks so.

 Poppabear wrote:
I've been hearing about this term for years and I have yet to actually understand why people insist there army lists are sometimes "fun lists". I actually do not know what that means. Why not make an effective list that works. Wargaming is naturally competitive and when someone makes a "fun list" they are pretty much asking to get slapped around on the table. Do people have some sort of thing against losing in a competitive environment or something? Like if they lose, they can just fall back on the premise that their list was "fun", because fun lists just sound like an excuse to me. But then there is the argument that people want to play just for fun, um, so do I, but I like to win as well and not look like a fool. You can just as easily have as much fun with a fully competitive list as you would with a "fun list".

See, you're not exactly coming in unbiased here, You're coming in from the competitive side, where only winning is fun, and optimised lists are the only kind to take. Read over your post from the perspective of a complete newbie who has not yet played in a tournament and doesn't (yet) care about the competitive scene, and you should spot that your post is almost like a rhetorical question, with 'of course competitive play is the only way' being the only acceptable answer.

'Fun' lists hold a different meaning for different people. It's not like it has a dictionary definition that fits everyone's take on it.

Some people consider a hyper optimised competitive list with as much cheese and rule-loopholing as possible to be a 'fun' list.

Some folk consider those folks to be A-holes, and their lists to be about as un-fun as you can get.

Both are right, from their own perspectives.

I run 'Hard' lists and 'Soft' lists. My tournament lists are intended to win, as efficiently as possible, and are generally built on a theme that fits together to allow this (an example would be my speek freek Ork Biker army)

My 'Soft' lists are for non-tournament games, where the focus is less on 'who won?' than on 'How enjoyable was the game for both players?'. Sure harcore games can be great for both players, but it's also pretty common for one player to be hardcoring and another not, which makes the fun rather one-sided

I tend to use less optimal units in casual/pickup games and like to use the units that I otherwise don't use, because in a less cut-throat game (unlike when money is on the line in tournaments) i feel less pressured to win at any cost and more to bring something cool that rarely sees the table in a tournament meta. My All-grot Squeaky tide or my tiny Mono-Nurgle Daemons army wouldn't last long against a hardcore tournament list, but they can be memorable/enjoyable to play against nonetheless.

I enjoy hardcore gaming against people who are prepared to play hardcore, generally in a tournament setting where that is assumed.

I also enjoy playing my 'fun' lists in a casual setting, where an analysed, optimised tournament-hammer list is NOT the assumption.

 Ascalam wrote:
I enjoy hardcore gaming against people who are prepared to play hardcore, generally in a tournament setting where that is assumed.

I also enjoy playing my 'fun' lists in a casual setting, where an analysed, optimised tournament-hammer list is NOT the assumption.

Yeah, there isn't really "one way to play", basically.

Not everyone considers wining the only way to have fun. I have fun just playing the game. It gives me a couple hours free with someone who enjoys the same thing I do. We can socialize and I can talk about modeling or painting.

Yes, people play 40k for fun.

Is that too alien of a concept?

Fun list are not fun though when your opponent puts down 3 squads of missile launcher long fangs.

Fun list vs fun list is well, fun

Competitive vs Competitive, is still fun but more serious and not everybody likes that I guess

 Poppabear wrote:
You can just as easily have as much fun with a fully competitive list as you would with a "fun list".

So, the only definition of fun is the one you use?

That's a very blinkered view.

What if I want to recreate an army evocative of a certain piece of background, or according to a certain theme? What if I want to create an army full of cool looking models, no matter how effective they are?

There's no disconnect between winning, and playing for fun. Everyone tries to win their games. It's all about the way people approach the game, and the way they build their armies.

For some people, the only reason to build an army is to crush other players. The only consideration is "How can I make this the most powerful army? What are the most effective combinations and most powerful units?". These people don't care about how cool the models look, or if there's any kind of theme, or a personal narrative for the force, or how much fun it would be to play against their army.

Other people consider those things.

Now, most people fall somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum. They have a theme, they have certain models they want to include because they look cool, but they also want to win games.

We only really get conflict when people don't take into account their local meta-game. Is your area full of cut-throat competitive players who don't care at all about theme, or how fun their army might be to play against, or what the models look like? If so, you're going to have a bad time with your themed Green Tide Ork list.

And if your local area is full of players who build themed armies with little consideration for how effective or powerful they are, who spend hours constructing meticulous (often terrible) back stories for their armies and characters, then wrecking-face with your Necron Air Force, game after game after game, is going to cause some issues.

I have to be honest it's a problem you only seem to really encounter in 40k.

The problem is that the game allows (well.. as can be seen above, can encourage) people to go for the type of boring and repetitive lists (again - boring to play against for most). It's not something I would really do, but then the games of 40k I play aren't really in that kind of environment. If someone tried to play a list of 6 squads of the same marine layouts in razorbacks, they would run out of opponents real fast. For themselves, how incredibly boring to paint and model in any case!

If it's something that you would rather not play against, there are a whole multitude of other games where the onus does not lie so heavily on list building and it is far less important.

See, I'd say it's not just on the lists that make it a 'fun list' or a 'competitive list'. It's also the mindset that the person playing has. I mean if say someone who intended to make a fun list made a list which to them was fun but due to them being a real rules geek and won't let anything slip or is a sore winner/loser it's not going to be very fun.

Although it works for the other way round too, if someone made a competitive list can still have a really fun game if they have a attitude that is that they are in the game to win but really to mainly have fun.

i think the problem lies ultimately in the lack of balance in the game. that there is even an imaginary distinction between "fun" and "competitive" annoys me. To me, a "fun" list seems to be one comprised of less optimal units, or else one that is "themed". the problem is, these lists, due to the shoddy internal balance of the game tend to lose out against optimised "hardcore" lists. there are exceptions. a themed veteran airborne IG company rocked the house in 5th.

i dont think players help the whole thing either. like all nerds, we tend to want a flag to stand under. hence the eternal bickering between the "fun" players who are seen as "doing it wrong" by the hardcore players, and the harcore players "doing it wrong" according to the "fun" players.

you can do both. strangely. Just not really in 40k. Other games seem to manage it well enough.

 Pacific wrote:
I have to be honest it's a problem you only seem to really encounter in 40k.

The problem is that the game allows (well.. as can be seen above, can encourage) people to go for the type of boring and repetitive lists (again - boring to play against for most). It's not something I would really do, but then the games of 40k I play aren't really in that kind of environment. If someone tried to play a list of 6 squads of the same marine layouts in razorbacks, they would run out of opponents real fast. For themselves, how incredibly boring to paint and model in any case!

If it's something that you would rather not play against, there are a whole multitude of other games where the onus does not lie so heavily on list building and it is far less important.

I totally agree with your comments here Pacific. I think this is one of the reasons why in 40K there are people, like the OP, who believe that wargaming is a naturally competitive thing, where the point of playing is just to win. In 40K, a lot is put into building the list, it is a science all of its own.

I've been gaming about 25 years now, and although i started with 40k, in that time i've played many games, and the vast majority of wargames have no list-building, no methods of building an army - they are simply based on real-life battles, and the forces each side had at the time, no matter how imbalanced. I think maybe if people had experience of these sort of games, as well as GWs tournament heavy games, they may see that it's not so much 'Fun lists' vs 'Competitive lists', but moreso 'Narrative' vs 'competitive'.

People play the game for different reasons, personally, i'm more into the background, the story, the narrative of the game. My circle of gamers have been playing 40k since the very bare bones of Rogue Trader, when the game was less rules and more tongue in cheek comedy. I still find the concept of 40k tournaments strange if i'm truly honest I only get 1-2 games a month of 40k in, and when we play every game tells a narrative, there is a story about the meeting, the forces involved, and even the terrain and the vicinity of the battle. The battle itself is more about telling the story an seeing what happens next than seeing who' army is the best/strongest. Obviously, i'm happy if I win, but it doesn't spoil the game if i don't.

On the opposite side of the coin, i've played against my friend's Son, who is an all-out competitive, tournament player. He's been playing for about 4-5 years, and i've never beat him. His forces are well thought out lists of the most effective units of the force he plays (My lists rarely change, ive been using some of my models in my lists since the 80's lol). I've never beaten him, and he's beat me on the first turn before, and has tabled me a couple of times. Yeah, for me, it was a harsh game to play, and a few times quite boring (Just watching my units get chewed up so quickly), but for him the fun was in proving that his list was a good list, that his 'strategy' had worked and he had picked a good combo. He's played in our narrative games a few times, and it just doesn't fulfil him in the same way.

Really, what i'm trying to say, is that there isn't really such a thing as 'Fun List' vs 'Competitive List' IMHO, all lists are 'Fun Lists' to the people who build them. People like different aspects of wargaming and different aspects of 40k, that's just how it is. There is often heated discussion about fluff players vs competitive players, but the two really are chalk and cheese, and the two views are rarely able to find a common ground. A lot of it is down to the fact we play a game which has such mechanics that allow both methods of play, which is likely one of the reasons why GWs games have such a fan base - would as many people play if it were like 'Black Powder', an excellent set of rules for playing a wargame, but totally dependent on using set forces from history? The fact that a lot of people nowadays (Compared to previous times) see wargaming as primarily 'Competitive' and do not understand non-competitive play is simply a sign of the times; how wargaming and companies that make these games have evolved, how the 'scene' has grown and developed, how the popularity has increased to a point where a tournament scene is feasible.

People need to stop taking wargaming so seriously sometimes.

Pnakotus wrote:


I totally agree with your comments here Pacific. I think this is one of the reasons why in 40K there are people, like the OP, who believe that wargaming is a naturally competitive thing, where the point of playing is just to win. In 40K, a lot is put into building the list, it is a science all of its own.

I've been gaming about 25 years now, and although i started with 40k, in that time i've played many games, and the vast majority of wargames have no list-building, no methods of building an army - they are simply based on real-life battles, and the forces each side had at the time, no matter how imbalanced. I think maybe if people had experience of these sort of games, as well as GWs tournament heavy games, they may see that it's not so much 'Fun lists' vs 'Competitive lists', but moreso 'Narrative' vs 'competitive'.

People play the game for different reasons, personally, i'm more into the background, the story, the narrative of the game. My circle of gamers have been playing 40k since the very bare bones of Rogue Trader, when the game was less rules and more tongue in cheek comedy. I still find the concept of 40k tournaments strange if i'm truly honest I only get 1-2 games a month of 40k in, and when we play every game tells a narrative, there is a story about the meeting, the forces involved, and even the terrain and the vicinity of the battle. The battle itself is more about telling the story an seeing what happens next than seeing who' army is the best/strongest. Obviously, i'm happy if I win, but it doesn't spoil the game if i don't.

On the opposite side of the coin, i've played against my friend's Son, who is an all-out competitive, tournament player. He's been playing for about 4-5 years, and i've never beat him. His forces are well thought out lists of the most effective units of the force he plays (My lists rarely change, ive been using some of my models in my lists since the 80's lol). I've never beaten him, and he's beat me on the first turn before, and has tabled me a couple of times. Yeah, for me, it was a harsh game to play, and a few times quite boring (Just watching my units get chewed up so quickly), but for him the fun was in proving that his list was a good list, that his 'strategy' had worked and he had picked a good combo. He's played in our narrative games a few times, and it just doesn't fulfil him in the same way.

Really, what i'm trying to say, is that there isn't really such a thing as 'Fun List' vs 'Competitive List' IMHO, all lists are 'Fun Lists' to the people who build them. People like different aspects of wargaming and different aspects of 40k, that's just how it is. There is often heated discussion about fluff players vs competitive players, but the two really are chalk and cheese, and the two views are rarely able to find a common ground. A lot of it is down to the fact we play a game which has such mechanics that allow both methods of play, which is likely one of the reasons why GWs games have such a fan base - would as many people play if it were like 'Black Powder', an excellent set of rules for playing a wargame, but totally dependent on using set forces from history? The fact that a lot of people nowadays (Compared to previous times) see wargaming as primarily 'Competitive' and do not understand non-competitive play is simply a sign of the times; how wargaming and companies that make these games have evolved, how the 'scene' has grown and developed, how the popularity has increased to a point where a tournament scene is feasible.

i've met some of those folks whose sole experience was historicals - the idea of "points" is odd to them. which is odd to me, as i started wargaming in points-based systems. then again, i was able to get two older gents with an entire history of historicals/little else to appreciate, enjoy and buy into infinity. they're actually thinking now of tweaking it to work as a ww2-esque squad based game. which i think is quite a nice thing to do.

Like yourself, im a huge fan of the background. whilst i dont really play 40k any more (warmachine, hordes, infinity, and soon dropzone commander) what kept me in (sadly, until codex grey knights, and the swill they've released since) was the fluff. but strangely, i hold the fluff and the game as 2 separate things. to me, the fluff, the setting is different. how can you call what happens on the tabletop "real" when marines die to a single lasgun shot? or when a guardsman punching is as powerful as a shot from his gun? the abstractions involved in turning the "real" fictional 40k into something that can be "played" separate it, and turn it into something else.

Some people see the game as "playing with someone". sadly, 40k requires such amounts of self restraint and self policing due to the shoddy lack of internal/external balance. its almost the best way. For me, i enjoy competition. I enjoy "pushing" myself, and trying to be all i can be. half marathons. 20mile cross country obstacle races. 30mile cycles/40mile hikes. even a humble 10km race. those are the things i'm into. and since getting into them, i've pushed myself to being fitter and better, and healthier and happier than i've been in a long time. I enjoy it. i enjoy the challenge, and the feeling of accomplishment. its the same with wargaming. i play "against" my opponent. its a battle of wills, and a battle of skills. and may the best person win. sadly, 40k isnt the game for me any more. i wish it was. but GW have driven me away, whilst other companies have pulled me in.

i dont think i'd enjoy your games Pnakotus, but i can appreciate them. might try one or two though. and im sure you'd happily pop over and see whats going on in a game of warmachine. just because people like one thing doesnt mean they hate/dislike the other. one thing does not necessarily imply the other. we arent in the trenches, we're nerds playing games. people need to stop taking things seriously, step back from the flags they're standing under, and simply find other like-minded individuals to game with.

This thread again?

Just to reiterate, I agree with most of the points raised in the thread.

- 'Fun' is dependent on what the players want from the game.
- Though everyone plays to win, the main reason people get into the game isn't 'being the best', it's collecting the models they like. Why can't they play with those models?
- It's irrelevant how 'competitive' the armies are - as long as the armies are equally matched and both players know what sort of game they're playing, it requires just as much skill to win.
- Picking the most optimised, 'best' army is no longer a skill - merely a google search. There is no skill in having the best army.
- Even if you care about your 'skill', surely it takes MORE skill to win with an unoptimised army?
- What is best changes over time with new editions/codexes. Why can't I play with my ten year old army just because the build isn't competitive any more?
- Playing the same SW list five times in a tournament isn't very fun.(Only a minority of people in the hobby actually play tournaments anyway!)
- Anything that increases the variety of armies across the player base is a good thing - playing at a 'competitiveness level' that allows use of everything is therefore a good thing.
- I don't want to play with the same list every time I play a game.

'Fun lists' can be effective and 'work', they just are built around certain themes and ideas that some players like and want to use so they reflect certain things in the fluff, or use a particular subset of models.

Simply, fun isn't all in the winning, it's in the army building and painting as well. What's so hard to understand about that?

I play MtG and it's easy to find the most competitive decks. The most popular deck archetypes that win events, and when you go to tournaments you'll see these decks varying by only a few cards played by several people. But I quite like taking cards that other people tend not to use and make decks around them, and it's both fun and creative, and they can be effective and competitive while being a bit different.

If everyone built armies with the priority of being completive and winning then many armies would look very similar as they all follow the same trends or design archetypes designed to exploit the most powerful features of the army lists.

Theres a few people in my club who play to both styles: some quite hardcore tournament players and some themed army players. The themed people tend to get cleaned up prettty bad (unless they happen to be 'cylon raider theme' or 'armoured company theme')
I play a reasonably competitive Tau army and I can wipe out the themed players of other armies generally considered to be more powerful. I talk to them about ways to make their army more powerful but their replies tend to be 'Oh yeah, I know I could do that, but my theme is feral imperial guard who don't have access to modern technology like lascannons or meltas.' You can't really argue with it; its just different play styles.

Hi all.
I agree with Pacific the 'fun- competative ' divide is pretty much 40k specific.

The 40k rule set has heavy strategic focus.
This means that without a good level of internal and external balance, options in the lists become very polorised .The 'take just for fun' or 'very competative chioce'.


Other games allow more tactical options .And they tend to have better ballance too.
This generaly means ALL options in the lists are equaly viable...
So these gamers CAN freely pick a theme for thier army .(As all themes are as good they can choose what they ACTUALY want to play, not feel pressured default to the single best option for winning...)

This could be why there are so many unpainted 40k armies perhaps?
Some people are JUST playing to win a game of toy soldiers ?

Others get more involved in the narrative and the background of thier army .

For me it's all about theme. If I can take a themed list then I will. If it so happens to win games then that's all gravy, but I'm not going to stop playing a list that doesn't win having painted and converted it to death just because it isn't. I've put too much effort in for that.

"Effective" lists can be boring and obvious.

Any mook can download the Space Wolves' 15 missile launcher spam list and play it.

If you want to do something of your own devising, for whatever reason, it could be a lot more fun.

Fun is subjective. To me, a "fun" list is one which fits the fluff/a theme, or makes the game a little more interesting for both players. A fun list can be "competitive" if played right. Winning is also fun, which is where the attraction of "competitive/effective" lists come in to certain people. They are optimising for their type of fun.

I will make note that coming back to 40K this year, after a big hiatus, has really shown me a change in how the game is approached.

When I first played, 90% of players local to me played with pretty much their whole collection... and their collection was just whatever units they happened to buy/paint (the FOC had yet to be invented). Games were between 1000 and 2000pts, depending on who had the least points available to field. Games were small, fast, and fun. You played - win or lose - for the sake of playing and having a fun, sociable time. There were a couple of "beardy" armies kicking about - what would be considered a spam list now, but these were the exception and were treated as a fun, one-off challenge.

When I came back, I continued this old mindset... buy what I wanted to paint (for fluff or aesthetic reasons), and massage it into a "list" whenever I wanted to play. On the last night of 5th Ed. the local GW store held an after-hours 1500pts "tournament". It was supposed to be a fun farewell to the old rules before picking up our pre-orders at midnight. There were no prizes, or tables, so "competition" wasn't supposed to come into it. I got a shock how serious the majority of the players took it. One guy only spoke during our match to declare what he was shooting/using, or to "correct" my interpretation of the rules*. Others, while a bit more sociable, had picked "competitive" lists and mostly dismantled my "fun" list by the end of turn 2, leaving me hanging on for sheer pride due to some lucky rolls here and there**. My opponents didn't seem to be having fun winning though, it was all just an exercise for them. I don't mind losing if we're both having fun - and they didn't seem to be. The only game I actually enjoyed was against the guy who had picked a BA DC army "to wind up the tourney players". He wiped me off the board in T4 cos I couldn't reliably take out his tanks/'Raven (his only way to win), but I really didn't care because I enjoyed myself. So did he. It was win-win.

Even after this experience I haven't changed my approach to the game, to "fit in". Because if I did, I'd stop having fun and would leave again. I view 40K as a game, not a competition. Games are about all players having fun. I'll just avoid anything that is remotely "tournament"-ish, unless I fancy a one-off change of pace.

*Back in the day, rules disagreements were "I think it's this, you think it's that... dice-off". Done. Resolved in 2 minutes, tops. This guy pulled out the thick rule book, and a binder of printed FAQ/Errata pages, every time. I didn't care that much so just gave in to his interpretations.
**One game (GK vs GK) I nearly won through the volume of dice my "unoptimised" Dreadknight threw out every turn. My opponent was reduced to 2 Paladins with 1w each, and his GM - also with only 1w - when the turn dice roll ended the game. My opponent was not amused by how close it ended.