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.

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.

But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.

But the counter to this is, again, the mindset that picking the optimal choices is the only valid way and everyone else should "git gud" and do the same. You seem to have no issue with that aspect, just the person who "deliberately chooses to bring a weak list" but not the person who purposely chooses to bring 100% optimized min-maxed lists and that everyone else should git gud.

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.

But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.

Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?

 Quickjager wrote:
Stop talking about Baneblades Unit, don't derail a thread into your choices again

That particular windmill has been tilted at for far too long...

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.

But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.

Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?

But what happens when you bring just models you like, but it turns out the most recent edition's shifts have made that combination of models oppressively powerful and 100% mathematically optimized?

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.

But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.

I am not sure how, but I get the feeling that you're leaving out a category between "smart" players who bring a "good" list, and entitled jerk "casual" players who DELIBERATELY bring a bad list so they can lose and virtue signal about it: people who don't have the money or the inclination to bring this month's power list.

You said yourself that expecting you to purchase and paint additional units just to decrease the power level of your list is asinine, and I agree. it is equally, if not more asinine to require someone to purchase and paint additional units to increase the power level of their list, because at any given time there are going to be a whole lot fewer options that are "good" than "suboptimal" and also at this point the shelf life of a good, competitive unit is outclassed by the shelf life of certain kinds of real literal cheese.

Beyond my ability to just swap some options in and out when 8th edition hit, I actually tried to purchase and paint what was then the most competitive option in my index, Razorwing Flocks, and by the time I finished painting the 15 I got in the box their points cost had been doubled and they were now yet another suboptimal "casual" choice that you would classify as virtue signaling if I dared to "deliberately" include it in my list.

I think it's not only unfair but pretty cartoonish and arrogant to tar everyone who isn't new but has an uncompetitive model collection as a CAAC virtue signaling donkey cave if they're more interested in seeking out games that avoid the top 5% of competitive models and wargear options to give them a reasonably close to 50-50 chance of winning.

To maintain a competitive 40k army, you either need to have the willingness to completely swap out your collection every few months, or the disposable income to purchase a sometimes entirely new army in that timeframe. If you classify everyone outside that sphere as an entitled virtue-signaler then you're almost certainly including 95% of the playerbase in that definition. Most players, if not almost all players, simply build a collection of models and swaps in and out units as power levels change in the game while picking up the occasional kit or new project.

 Fafnir wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.

But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.

Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?

But what happens when you bring just models you like, but it turns out the most recent edition's shifts have made that combination of models oppressively powerful and 100% mathematically optimized?

Then im playing my ideal army and having fun playing the game how i want. You running around calling people entitled for bringing the army they like for whatever reason whether it be statistically optimized or not is laughable

 Fafnir wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.

But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.

Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?

But what happens when you bring just models you like, but it turns out the most recent edition's shifts have made that combination of models oppressively powerful and 100% mathematically optimized?

If you are really, truly in that situation (and I have heard that situation bemoaned many, many times by people who, strangely, always seem to be winding up in that situation because "what they like" tends to magically shift and change depending on what's the best, but only a few times by people who I know have actually always played the models that are now oppressively powerful) then you have a lot of solutions.

1) Do nothing. Balance problems in the game are not yours to have to solve, and of late they have been being solved pretty quickly. If you get bored of one-sided games, maybe

2) play in more competitively minded settings than you normally would

3) modify the scenario or your list to create a closer game.

4) Introduce more variety into your list. Later, when you're in the opposite situation (and that will happen eventually) you'll have a larger collection that will be easier to adapt.

Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?

 Luciferian wrote:
Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?

I mean, this is kinda what I've been saying previously...

 Luciferian wrote:
Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?

I'm both! Therefore I are be the master gamer race!!!!

Anyway, yep I agree.

 Luciferian wrote:
Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?

yeah. In general, I agree with that statement. In the real world, I am going to hold my veteran players responsible for ensuring we don't drive away new or returning from old edition players by stomping them flat, because we want as many players as we can possibly get.

But yeah. You're responsible for your own enjoyment. Many people don't enjoy when their opponents aren't having a good time, or when their games aren't close, or when they have trouble getting games because people don't want to play against them. It is up to them to change that if they don't like it, and nobody else. If you do have problems like the three above, and you do hold your opponents responsible for bringing their lists up or down to meet yours, all youre going to get is frustrated and bitter.

Viz. above.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What if the objective of the scenario is to replicate a historical battle as well as possible? If you're playing as the French at Waterloo, you have to deliberately not march Marshal Grouchy's army northwards, as well as deliberately slowing down your own army's northern pursuit of the retreating and reforming Prussians to accurately model history. If self-limitation with the goal of losing a battle isn't "playing to lose" I don't know what is.

You can make an uneven battle into a fair game by modifying the victory conditions for the players--there have been several "last stand" battles in White Dwarf, where the defender was outnumbered, but needed to survive for X turns.

I have fun by recreating battles fought in the Warhammer 40,000 Universe, because I enjoy the game for the setting.
I used to enjoy the game for it's rules, but that was 3-5 editions ago, so now I play for the story.

I don't recreate specific battles, rather I create 'Fluffy' lists that are appropriate to the setting, and I enjoy fighting other 'Fluffy' lists.

I don't particularly mind winning or losing, and I don't mind if a list is 'Good' or 'Bad'.

The last torny I went too, I took a carefully themed Inquisitorial Assassination force, and came 7th out of 42, and that was largely due to my first game cutting short due to time. Fluffy lists can be good, competatively. They can also be bad. Depends on the list, really. [Which is part of my self imposed challenge. How do I field a list that's both "Realistic" and good?]

What destroys my enjoyment of the game utterly is when armies and battles look and play like nothing out of the setting. If I don't feel like I'm fighting in the Warhammer universe, and I'm just playing any other generic game to win, there are a hell of a lot of better choices out their for both parties.
Particularly when those lists 'Goodness' is based on exploiting the thinnest end of the wedge for maxium not how the designers intended but still works gameplay.


I get some people like breaking the system, and that's cool. Theoryhammer away. Taking it to the tabletop however, is poor sportsmanship.

Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.

This is precisely why there are people on this forum who wish the game was better, or at the very least balanced within its own weak rules so that all players can enjoy building and painting and playing a force they enjoy without getting curb stomped.

 Blacksails wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.

This is precisely why there are people on this forum who wish the game was better, or at the very least balanced within its own weak rules so that all players can enjoy building and painting and playing a force they enjoy without getting curb stomped.

I think with few exceptions we all wish it were better (we all likely will never agree exactly what that is) but none of us want it to be worse. I am wondering though, with the game selling "getting started" and other "battleforce" boxes if thats more the size they expect us to play in both 40k and AoS, from my experience AoS is best played with those smaller forces,. definately interested in others takes on it.

As a chaos player I love the Possessed models. Its at best a so so unit. But I always have a squad in my lists. I enjoy making lists. I enjoy the challenge of competition. I also like meeting new people with my same passions for the hobby. I make 3 variants of every list I have for PUG's, which are soft normal and hard. Id rather lose in a close game than table someone. I sit and theory hammer about how to make my lists the best they can be for whatever units I chose to use. The fluff is important to me. I do not like to label other players and make a judgement about how they take the hobby (except grey kids....im sorry but if you cant even be bothered to put a base coat on your minis then we will probably not have a good game.).

So what does that make me? Since we are coming up with classifications.

Wayniac wrote:
But the counter to this is, again, the mindset that picking the optimal choices is the only valid way and everyone else should "git gud" and do the same. You seem to have no issue with that aspect, just the person who "deliberately chooses to bring a weak list" but not the person who purposely chooses to bring 100% optimized min-maxed lists and that everyone else should git gud.

Asmodios wrote:
Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply disputing the idea that the player with the more powerful list has the entire obligation to bring a weaker list, while the player with the weaker list has no matching obligation to improve theirs. If you're going to argue for making list changes to meet in the middle then both players need to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think it's not only unfair but pretty cartoonish and arrogant to tar everyone who isn't new but has an uncompetitive model collection as a CAAC virtue signaling donkey cave if they're more interested in seeking out games that avoid the top 5% of competitive models and wargear options to give them a reasonably close to 50-50 chance of winning.

Good thing I didn't say that then. In fact, in the post I quoted I even explicitly mentioned at least one other reason (following the fluff) for having a weaker army that has nothing to do with TFG CAAC attitudes. There are a great many players with weaker lists who are not CAAC, the key part of CAAC behavior is the smug insistence that your way to play is the only way to have fun and everyone else is a TFG (especially if they beat you) and redefining "casual" to mean "plays the game with the exact choice of units that I want" rather than the actual meaning of the word.

I agree with a compromise, but where do you draw the line? The person playing an army that SHOULD be good, but isn't because GW's rules are bad, what do they do short of scrapping their entire army concept and bringing the good stuff? The same thing if you happen to be playing one of those armies that are both fluffy and incredibly strong; do you drop some of the fluff to tone down the list, or?

As I said before I think the main problem is when you have someone with an "not optimal" list (for whatever reason, but let's rule out the person purposely just grabbing whatever random crap, and assume they actually are trying to build a solid fluffy list and it just happens to be bad; such as wanting to actually use Tactical Marines or Assault marines or whatever) turns up to play someone with a fully optimized list. Neither person is going to have fun in that game, and I sometimes really think the best option is to just realize that, and just not play. Not getting a game, while it definitely sucks, can't suck more than spending a couple of hours having an unenjoyable game.

There is no full generally all comprimising solution to that problem. It needs to be handled between players while setting up a game or by a TO/ event telegraphing it's intention loud and clear.

Table wrote:
As a chaos player I love the Possessed models. Its at best a so so unit. But I always have a squad in my lists. I enjoy making lists. I enjoy the challenge of competition. I also like meeting new people with my same passions for the hobby. I make 3 variants of every list I have for PUG's, which are soft normal and hard. Id rather lose in a close game than table someone. I sit and theory hammer about how to make my lists the best they can be for whatever units I chose to use. The fluff is important to me. I do not like to label other players and make a judgement about how they take the hobby (except grey kids....im sorry but if you cant even be bothered to put a base coat on your minis then we will probably not have a good game.).

So what does that make me? Since we are coming up with classifications.

Normal with a slice of hypocritical... Which is also normal.

(Not a slam, but 'do not like to label' sits uncomfortably with 'grey kids')

Earth127 wrote:
There is no full generally all comprimising to that problem. It needs to be handled between players while setting up a game or by a TO/ event telegraphing it's intention loud and clear.

and that is one of 40k's ongoing problems, the vast gulf been kerbstomp table you in 2 and 'average' lists that you have to have pre-game negotiations to get an acceptable game, obviously not a problem in an established clique where some of broad social contraxt exists but for its still a more of a PITA than it should be

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
There is no full generally all comprimising to that problem. It needs to be handled between players while setting up a game or by a TO/ event telegraphing it's intention loud and clear.

and that is one of 40k's ongoing problems, the vast gulf been kerbstomp table you in 2 and 'average' lists that you have to have pre-game negotiations to get an acceptable game, obviously not a problem in an established clique where some of broad social contraxt exists but for its still a more of a PITA than it should be

I think the problem there is with GW and its ideal for 40k and AoS, they want all balance to be done with the pre-game negotiations, something that is a royal pain when trying to come up with a pick up game. Essentially GW has conceded and just stopped bothering. I never have these kind of issues with Malifaux, X-wing, Warmahordes/CoI, Wrath of Kings,Confrontation, or even LOTR/Hobbit from GW...it just seems to be a problem with their "big 2"

 thekingofkings wrote:
Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.

To me that isn't a fault of the game. Maybe the player just needs some more variation in their army or needs more practice. Maybe they are just up against better opponents. Looking a a player and blaming the game because they lose all the time doesn't necessarily mean the game is flawed.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.

To me that isn't a fault of the game. Maybe the player just needs some more variation in their army or needs more practice. Maybe they are just up against better opponents. Looking a a player and blaming the game because they lose all the time doesn't necessarily mean the game is flawed.

It does to me when the army list is viable, that a game has such an imbalance that you can make these super powerful or straight garbage lists, that is not the player, that is the system. In the case of my friend, he has in previous editions won dozens of tournaments and has a good grasp of tactics, but this army (and primaris are supposed to bet he new hotness after all) get ritually curb stomped by equivalent PL and points forces in every fight. This was a force designed by the company that makes the game to be at least competitive with the other half of the starter.

 thekingofkings wrote:


I think the problem there is with GW and its ideal for 40k and AoS, they want all balance to be done with the pre-game negotiations, something that is a royal pain when trying to come up with a pick up game. Essentially GW has conceded and just stopped bothering. I never have these kind of issues with Malifaux, X-wing, Warmahordes/CoI, Wrath of Kings,Confrontation, or even LOTR/Hobbit from GW...it just seems to be a problem with their "big 2"

troof is that.
As if GW stopped trying, hired half-baked finance guys to do their model/game design, and fired everyone serious.
As written, it lends itself to be broken.
Why not do cover model to model rather than unit to unit?
As it is, unrealistically benefits msu types and fast combat interceptors (not numaries, just a term).

 Luciferian wrote:
Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?

Amen!

Wayniac wrote:
I agree with a compromise, but where do you draw the line? The person playing an army that SHOULD be good, but isn't because GW's rules are bad, what do they do short of scrapping their entire army concept and bringing the good stuff? The same thing if you happen to be playing one of those armies that are both fluffy and incredibly strong; do you drop some of the fluff to tone down the list, or?

You compromise. If you want the more powerful list to drop/swap units to tone it down, then the weaker list should be equally prepared to swap out bad units with better units, or take better wargear/weapons.

GW's rules are bad, and they should feel bad, and its the reason I'm not as invested in the game as I was a few editions ago, but if players are going to regulate themselves for balance, everyone should be prepared to compromise rather than expect one player to do all the work in regulating their lists.

Local meta, group attitudes aside, of course.

Voss wrote:

Table wrote:
As a chaos player I love the Possessed models. Its at best a so so unit. But I always have a squad in my lists. I enjoy making lists. I enjoy the challenge of competition. I also like meeting new people with my same passions for the hobby. I make 3 variants of every list I have for PUG's, which are soft normal and hard. Id rather lose in a close game than table someone. I sit and theory hammer about how to make my lists the best they can be for whatever units I chose to use. The fluff is important to me. I do not like to label other players and make a judgement about how they take the hobby (except grey kids....im sorry but if you cant even be bothered to put a base coat on your minis then we will probably not have a good game.).

So what does that make me? Since we are coming up with classifications.

Normal with a slice of hypocritical... Which is also normal.

(Not a slam, but 'do not like to label' sits uncomfortably with 'grey kids')

yup, i admit it

It really comes down to expectations. I expect that I can play with any units I want, and I can. It's an unreal expectation however that whatever I pick is exactly perfectly balanced with every other option. Are there some things I wish were better? Of course, I wish choosen were more like they were in 4th, with ton of options, but it is what it is. For example, possessed are not the worst thing ever, but not the best. But you can make them better with a mix of deamons. A Herald or maybe a changeling, suddenly those possessed have potential that they didn't have before.

Back to Waac / caac, waac players that I have delt with have always ended up being caught cheating, if not by me then by others watching the game. I don't see waac as someone who loves to make powerful lists. Same with caac, they don't make bad lists on purpose then complain that they lose too much and everything else is op, that's simply a bad sport.

And really that's what this all comes down to. Is the person on the other side of the table a good sport? If so I am sure it will be a good game either way. If not then it's going to suck for someone. But this also applys to us as well. If we are expecting one thing, get another, and act like a total grot about it, then we become the thing we don't like.