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 only play ITC tournaments or practice games for ITC tournaments. Every once in awhile I'll do an escalation league but typically everyone brings competitive lists to those, too. I don't see anything fun about losing before dice are rolled so I typically build the best list I can. Before I start a new army, I just check to see what units are viable in competitive lists. If I only like an army because of x, y, and z units, but those units are terrible for competitive play, I will pick a different army.

 Toofast wrote:
I only play ITC tournaments or practice games for ITC tournaments. Every once in awhile I'll do an escalation league but typically everyone brings competitive lists to those, too. I don't see anything fun about losing before dice are rolled so I typically build the best list I can. Before I start a new army, I just check to see what units are viable in competitive lists. If I only like an army because of x, y, and z units, but those units are terrible for competitive play, I will pick a different army.

But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

Snip

 Crimson wrote:
But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

Because if everyone does their best: it will not be an auto-win at all (they will all be playing to a similar competitive level) unless a "fluff-bunny" walks in when things get serious.

Because the consistent means to attempt to win is to mitigate as much of the randomness as possible.

- Auto hit weapons.
- Buffing auras.
- Buffing Stratagems.
- Re-rolls.
- Buffing clan/faction/chapter/god traits.
- Warlord traits.
- Not overcharging unless hits are buffed.

I could go on: every choice either improves or detracts from the "consistency" of your tactics and strategy to work as planned.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

Because if everyone does their best: it will not be an auto-win at all (they will all be playing to a similar competitive level) unless a "fluff-bunny" walks in when things get serious.

But if everyone just plays 'fluff-bunny' armies, it is still even. You can play seriously with and use tactics with 'fluff-bunny' armies. Emphasising choosing the best stuff possible is pretty pointless, considering how easy it is; it really doesn't take much skill. Doing so merely limits the amount of armies and unit combinations that can be played.

Because the consistent means to attempt to win is to mitigate as much of the randomness as possible.

- Auto hit weapons.
- Buffing auras.
- Buffing Stratagems.
- Re-rolls.
- Buffing clan/faction/chapter/god traits.
- Warlord traits.
- Not overcharging unless hits are buffed.

I could go on: every choice either improves or detracts from the "consistency" of your tactics and strategy to work as planned.

But you can do all that with bad units too.

 Crimson wrote:

Because the consistent means to attempt to win is to mitigate as much of the randomness as possible.

- Auto hit weapons.
- Buffing auras.
- Buffing Stratagems.
- Re-rolls.
- Buffing clan/faction/chapter/god traits.
- Warlord traits.
- Not overcharging unless hits are buffed.

I could go on: every choice either improves or detracts from the "consistency" of your tactics and strategy to work as planned.

But you can do all that with bad units too.

Not necessarily. The game system is going to make certain units and wargear options mathematically favorable compared to others in terms of random results. That's why, for example, plasma is so heavily favored over melta in this edition. It's easy to buff a unit so that they reroll 1's to hit, which gives you consistent damage at medium range compared to having to get into extreme close range to minimize the randomness of melta damage. Talizvar has an excellent point - the key to success in a game like 40k is in leveraging the mathematics involved and mitigating randomness as much as possible, and because of the nature of the game there is always going to be one unit that is better at doing that than the others for the points. Expecting people to play with bad units is just asking them to accept more randomness, because randomness is more "fair" to players who ignore the math behind the game. The implication is that people should have to consciously avoid taking control over the results of the game and allow it to be based on more random outcomes because that is more fun, but not everyone sees it that way. There's nothing inherently more "fun" about playing either way, it's just a matter of personal preference.

 Luciferian wrote:

Not necessarily. The game system is going to make certain units and wargear options mathematically favorable compared to others in terms of random results. That's why, for example, plasma is so heavily favored over melta in this edition. It's easy to buff a unit so that they reroll 1's to hit, which gives you consistent damage at medium range compared to having to get into extreme close range to minimize the randomness of melta damage. Talizvar has an excellent point - the key to success in a game like 40k is in leveraging the mathematics involved and mitigating randomness as much as possible, and because of the nature of the game there is always going to be one unit that is better at doing that than the others for the points. Expecting people to play with bad units is just asking them to accept more randomness, because randomness is more "fair" to players who ignore the math behind the game. The implication is that people should have to consciously avoid taking control over the results of the game and allow it to be based on more random outcomes because that is more fun, but not everyone sees it that way. There's nothing inherently more "fun" about playing either way, it's just a matter of personal preference.

So you meant that mitigating the randomness of the plasma is easier than mitigating the randomness of the melta? Certainly true. The former takes buying a buff bot, the latter careful manoeuvring. Thus effectively using melta requires more tactics and skill than effectively using plasma. Plasma is obviously better weapon, no question about that; melta probably results more interesting and tactical games though. Some people place more value on this than on winning.

 Crimson wrote:

So you meant that mitigating the randomness of the plasma is easier than mitigating the randomness of the melta? Certainly true. The former takes buying a buff bot, the latter careful manoeuvring. Thus effectively using melta requires more tactics and skill than effectively using plasma. Plasma is obviously better weapon, no question about that; melta probably results more interesting and tactical games though. Some people place more value on this than on winning.

That was just one clear example but you can pick any you like. Plasma is a more consistent weapon; it's not a question of tactics or maneuver, it's purely mathematical. Melta is simply more random, and some people don't agree that randomness is interesting or tactical. It's not even necessarily about winning above everything, it's just playing the game as a "game", or rather a system of rules and limitations which are of benefit to understand and utilize.

I generally go for a mix of casual and competitive - with the aim being to use most/all of the units I want, whist maintaining enough 'good' units to ensure that my army can still compete reasonably well.

Typically, I'll keep the following as fluffy as possible:
- Unit selection/army composition
- Some/all characters and their wargear
- Army Regiment/Dynasty/Kabal
- Warlord traits
- Artefacts
- Allies (rarely ever use them, never use them for CPs)

However, I'll usually tend towards the competitive side when it comes to:
- CP bonus from Detachments
- Unit loadouts
- Vehicle loadouts

In terms of how that affects my armies:

IG
I tend towards Infantry lists, comprised almost exclusively of Infantry Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads and Scions (though with the new CA rules, I might give an armoured list a go). In terms of characters, I actually have a Hydra theme (based on the Marvel organisation) - and so I have Lord Commissar Red Skull, Baron Strucker and Baron Zemo as Company Commanders, and various others from the comics (Gorgon as a Primaris Psyker, Grim Reaper as a Tempestor Prime etc.). I've tried to give them all wargear based on their powers/equipment from the comics (Gorgon has a healing factor and turns people to stone, so he has Gaze of the Emperor and the Death Mask of Ollanius; Baron Strucker has a magic gauntlet thing, so he has a Power Fist, Grim Reaper has a scythe-arm, so he gets a Power Axe etc.). I've also got the Winter Soldier as an Eversor Assassin (though, thinking about it, Marbo might now be a better choice).

(Obviously I've been converting the characters as best I can.)

Anyway, what I like about this is that my characters really feel like individuals (rather than just Company Commander #346). What's more, whilst my wargear, warlord traits, artefacts (and probably unit selection) aren't optimal, I never feel like I'm crippling my list as a result. Also, even if my characters do die, they're free to come back for the next game because they're Marvel villains.


Sadly, I can't say the same for Dark Eldar. I like infantry and so want to use a lot of Kabalites, as well as stuff like Mandrakes, Incubi, and Scourges. I also choose my Kabal based on fluff, rather than function (and sadly I happen to like the worst one), as well as my Warlord Trait and artefacts. However, my lists almost always end up feeling very weak as a result, with my army being both short on long-range weapons and also really lacking punch (not ideal on a glass-cannon army). Even if I get the first turn, my alpha strike just feels pillow-fisted. Also, whilst I'm content to always give the above IG list 3 artefacts, my DE list feels far too short on CPs for that to be viable. Which is a real shame because DE have some really fluffy artefacts. Same goes for the stratagem to give my other characters extra Warlord Traits - I want to take the regeneration trait on my Haemonculus for fluff reasons, but it feels like unless I take the +d3CP trait, I'm just screwing myself over. It's made all the worse by the fact that DE characters are pretty awful in general. There are only 3 of them (not counting special characters), with barely any options. So warlord traits and artefacts are basically the only way to customise them to any meaningful extent.

With Necrons... we'll see when CA hits. Currently, it seems like I can barely get anything in a list before i run out of points.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So you meant that mitigating the randomness of the plasma is easier than mitigating the randomness of the melta? Certainly true. The former takes buying a buff bot, the latter careful manoeuvring. Thus effectively using melta requires more tactics and skill than effectively using plasma. Plasma is obviously better weapon, no question about that; melta probably results more interesting and tactical games though. Some people place more value on this than on winning.

That was just one clear example but you can pick any you like. Plasma is a more consistent weapon; it's not a question of tactics or maneuver, it's purely mathematical. Melta is simply more random, and some people don't agree that randomness is interesting or tactical. It's not even necessarily about winning above everything, it's just playing the game as a "game", or rather a system of rules and limitations which are of benefit to understand and utilize.

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

 Crimson wrote:

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way, but there's nothing inherently superior or more skillful about it, either. It's just placing arbitrary limitations on yourself.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way, but there's nothing inherently superior or more skillful about it, either. It's just placing arbitrary limitations on yourself.

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

 Crimson wrote:

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

Perhaps, but not even complete cheese lists are unbeatable in every situation. It's about choosing the right options for your enemy, mission, etc. Surely we can agree that that is a valid part of the overall game and that putting thought into your selections based on the situation you face doesn't make you a low-skill sociopath who lives to steal ice cream cones from children?

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

Perhaps, but not even complete cheese lists are unbeatable in every situation. It's about choosing the right options for your enemy, mission, etc. Surely we can agree that that is a valid part of the overall game and that putting thought into your selections based on the situation you face doesn't make you a low-skill sociopath who lives to steal ice cream cones from children?

I have never implied that competitive players are sociopaths. Though what you describe basically sounds like list tailoring to me. Now if we're talking about building a balanced army that has tools to deal with varied situations, then that's different.

 Crimson wrote:

I have never implied that competitive players are sociopaths. Though what you describe basically sounds like list tailoring to me. Now if we're talking about building a balanced army that has tools to deal with varied situations, then that's different.

That's more or less what I'm talking about. Not necessarily looking up a cheesy netlist or the previous GT winning list and copying it, but making optimal choices based on the situations you're likely to face. This debate seems to be largely stuck on definitions of terms, but it seems like some people think that anything other than choosing a fluffy list without any consideration for what may or may not be optimal "game" wise makes you a bad player or even a bad person.

I just can’t see the appeal of winning a game on a spreadsheet before you’ve even met your opponent. Spreadsheeting is not a huge intellectual challenge - there’s a general limit to how complex the maths can get when it’s usually capped at 2D6. Nor is writing a battle plan for such a simple system.

How well you adapt on the fly, how you react to your opponent and how you force them to react to you are the real measures of skill. Which is why I think a game should be won or lost on the tabletop, rather than the laptop.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I have never implied that competitive players are sociopaths. Though what you describe basically sounds like list tailoring to me. Now if we're talking about building a balanced army that has tools to deal with varied situations, then that's different.

That's more or less what I'm talking about. Not necessarily looking up a cheesy netlist or the previous GT winning list and copying it, but making optimal choices based on the situations you're likely to face. This debate seems to be largely stuck on definitions of terms, but it seems like some people think that anything other than choosing a fluffy list without any consideration for what may or may not be optimal "game" wise makes you a bad player or even a bad person.

Thing is, having a balanced list with tools for different situations does not necessarily mean choosing the best tool for each of those situations. For example, sure, you need to include some anti armour on your list, and anti armour unit A might be the best available, but you still choose the anti armour unit B because you really like the model or it fits the theme of your list better, etc.

kombatwombat wrote:
I just can’t see the appeal of winning a game on a spreadsheet before you’ve even met your opponent. Spreadsheeting is not a huge intellectual challenge - there’s a general limit to how complex the maths can get when it’s usually capped at 2D6. Nor is writing a battle plan for such a simple system.

How well you adapt on the fly, how you react to your opponent and how you force them to react to you are the real measures of skill. Which is why I think a game should be won or lost on the tabletop, rather than the laptop.

What does your last sentence even really mean in practical terms, though? That you shouldn't put thought into your lists ahead of time or pay attention to the meta game at all?

I'm by no means claiming that trying to make an optimized list makes you an elite genius or a great player. Most of the combat interactions in the game are based on the probability of only 216 different outcomes so it is relatively simplistic, thanks to the D6 system. All I'm saying is that that information is there, and it doesn't necessarily make you a scrub to keep it in mind when building your list as opposed to going in blind to the meta. Is that really such a controversial opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Thing is, having a balanced list with tools for different situations does not necessarily mean choosing the best tool for each of those situations. For example, sure, you need to include some anti armour on your list, and anti armour unit A might be the best available, but you still choose the anti armour unit B because you really like the model or it fits the theme of your list better, etc.

Sure, but what is wrong with wanting to pick the better option? Remember, I'm not talking down to anyone or telling them they're playing the game the wrong way, but I don't understand why people insist that you make the conscious decision to not pick the better option when given the choice.

 Luciferian wrote:


I'm by no means claiming that trying to make an optimized list makes you an elite genius or a great player. Most of the combat interactions in the game are based on the probability of only 216 different outcomes so it is relatively simplistic, thanks to the D6 system. All I'm saying is that that information is there, and it doesn't necessarily make you a scrub to keep it in mind when building your list as opposed to going in blind to the meta. Is that really such a controversial opinion?

No one is saying that it makes them a scrub. It is just so happens that certain competitive players think that they're super smart for knowing which units are better and scoffing at the 'fluff-bunnies' which choose suboptimal units, whilst in all likelihood the said fluff-bunnies are perfectly aware of what the competitively optimal choices would be and merely choose not to utilise them for aesthetic, thematic or other such reasons.

 Luciferian wrote:

Sure, but what is wrong with wanting to pick the better option?

There is nothing inherently wrong with it.

 Crimson wrote:

No one is saying that it makes them a scrub. It is just so happens that certain competitive players think that they're super smart for knowing which units are better and scoffing at the 'fluff-bunnies' which choose suboptimal units, whilst in all likelihood the said fluff-bunnies are perfectly aware of what the competitively optimal choices would be and merely choose not to utilise them for aesthetic, thematic or other such reasons.

I hope you can see that I'm trying to have a good faith discussion here, and that I'm trying to avoid generalizing or painting "the other side" with a large, absolute and unfavorable brush. I don't speak for anyone else but I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing a fluffy list or even an intentionally bad one. Your models, your choice. However, if I'm being completely honest, much of the language being used to describe meta gamers, power gamers, WAACers or whatever you want to call them does not allow the same respect for personal choice or preference. Maybe this whole thing is about the resentment between each side and much of it is based on negative past experiences with one type of player or the other, which is somewhat understandable.

 Luciferian wrote:
What does your last sentence even really mean in practical terms, though? That you shouldn't put thought into your lists ahead of time or pay attention to the meta game at all?

I'm by no means claiming that trying to make an optimized list makes you an elite genius or a great player. Most of the combat interactions in the game are based on the probability of only 216 different outcomes so it is relatively simplistic, thanks to the D6 system. All I'm saying is that that information is there, and it doesn't necessarily make you a scrub to keep it in mind when building your list as opposed to going in blind to the meta. Is that really such a controversial opinion?

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

The game is currently determined according to the following ratio (the numbers aren't precise here but they illustrate the point) - 40% player decisions on the tabletop, 40% list building, 20% luck of the dice. In my opinion, by far and away the most determining factor should be the most difficult and dynamic one as that's the one which has the greatest spread of skill. Which would mean say 70% player decisions on the tabletop, 10% list building, 20% luck of the dice. Some reasons why:

- two evenly matched players where the only determining factor is luck will at worst see a 60-40 win-loss if one player gets all of the luck and their opponent gets none
- an extremely lucky but unskilled player with a strong netlist could still be beaten by an experienced player
- at the top tables of a major event the skill level should be similar, and a well-constructed list gives the player an edge in a tight competition but not an overwhelming advantage
- army balance woes become less of a problem; you can take Terminators because you like them without unduly hurting your chances, or take a Fellblade without automatically handing your opponent a crushing victory

Again, the numbers aren't super precise, but they illustrate the point - the player decisions on the table show the greatest skill and hence should be the greatest determining factor. You can't download skill from the results of NOVA and beat your opponent over the head with them.

The WAAC tournament players always have better looking/painted armies that I've seen compared to most of the casuals I've seen that aren't STRICTLY modelers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'd think a 7th edition White Scars force with a Riptide Wing would look bad until you've seen it put together cohesively.

Okay? But in the actual game, list building is an important part.

And it's far easier to say "Build your hardest list" to get a mostly even game than it is to say "Build a list that's kinda hard".

In the first one, with the best list you can manage, you all are aiming for the top. You know it's no holds barred, just bring your A game.

In the latter... Is taking all Plasma too good? Should I take some Meltas? What about Storm Bolters, are those too cheesy for the cost? Is a named character too much? What if it's a bad named character?

kombatwombat wrote:

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

The game is currently determined according to the following ratio (the numbers aren't precise here but they illustrate the point) - 40% player decisions on the tabletop, 40% list building, 20% luck of the dice. In my opinion, by far and away the most determining factor should be the most difficult and dynamic one as that's the one which has the greatest spread of skill. Which would mean say 70% player decisions on the tabletop, 10% list building, 20% luck of the dice. Some reasons why:

- two evenly matched players where the only determining factor is luck will at worst see a 60-40 win-loss if one player gets all of the luck and their opponent gets none
- an extremely lucky but unskilled player with a strong netlist could still be beaten by an experienced player
- at the top tables of a major event the skill level should be similar, and a well-constructed list gives the player an edge in a tight competition but not an overwhelming advantage
- army balance woes become less of a problem; you can take Terminators because you like them without unduly hurting your chances, or take a Fellblade without automatically handing your opponent a crushing victory

Again, the numbers aren't super precise, but they illustrate the point - the player decisions on the table show the greatest skill and hence should be the greatest determining factor. You can't download skill from the results of NOVA and beat your opponent over the head with them.

Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

Has anyone said they enjoy that, though?

What I saw being said was more along the lines of "Bring your best, so it's more even than one person bringing their best and the other bringing something subpar."

A mix of the two. I'm not interested in chasing the flavour of the month, but I like to build a strong list with what I've got.

kombatwombat wrote:

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

Don't ascribe that intention to every meta gamer, though - many or even most of them probably just enjoy working within rules systems to figure out optimized builds, and there's absolutely nothing unfun, mean-spirited or unskilled about that in itself. Don't blame them if in the process of doing so they happen to make a list that is just that advantaged over a list without any such consideration put into it, because that's not their fault. It's also not fair to insist that because you happen to like units that are in a poor state in the current meta, everyone else has to use them too in order to make them artificially competitive. I know it sucks that a lot of awesome, fluffy units just don't cut it, and I don't like it either, but it's not other players' responsibility to account for the imbalances or cater their armies to your preferred list. Unless, of course, you tell your opponent you'd like to use terminators because you like them and they agree to tone it down for the sake of fun.

If someone sets out to find the most outrageously overpowered combinations and totally break the game, and then knowingly faces that list off against sub-optimal lists for the purpose of making someone else feel bad about their army, that person is simply a douche. But not everyone who chooses optimal options in their list has that motivation. I have personally gone as far as making a good list which a lot of people would consider frustrating, then made another list with another faction that is specifically designed to hard counter the first one, explained the choices to an opponent and let them play the counter list with my own models. Because to me, it is fun to experiment and find powerful combinations as well as think about their weaknesses and how to exploit them, and to share that information with other players, more than it's fun just to win for the sake of it. It's fun to see two forces at their absolute best facing off against each other and using combinations of unit abilities and stratagems to do things that would normally be unusual. Winning against an inferior army that has no chance, I will agree, is not fun for anyone, and that's not what I'm about.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

You cannot win in the list building stage, you can only lose in it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I only play ITC tournaments or practice games for ITC tournaments. Every once in awhile I'll do an escalation league but typically everyone brings competitive lists to those, too. I don't see anything fun about losing before dice are rolled so I typically build the best list I can. Before I start a new army, I just check to see what units are viable in competitive lists. If I only like an army because of x, y, and z units, but those units are terrible for competitive play, I will pick a different army.

But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

It's not my job to build a decent army list for my opponent, that's their job. If they don't do that, they deserve to lose before dice are rolled. Building a decent list is not rocket science. There's about 15 different sources you can check online to see what units are decent for your army. If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win. It's the same for taking your car to the track. If you just buy stuff to make your car look cool, while someone else spent all their money on engine, trans, and suspension, you don't stand a chance. It's the same with playing a sport. If you spend all day working out your abs and biceps you aren't going to be a very effective lineman. Again, it's not my job to tell someone else how to build their army, or their car, etc. It's my job to build my whatever the best I can to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way, but there's nothing inherently superior or more skillful about it, either. It's just placing arbitrary limitations on yourself.

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

The mental gymnastics you do to make it seem like people who build better lists are somehow inferior at the game is downright hilarious, and I've seen it in every competitive hobby I've ever engaged in (typically from the losing side).

"You only beat me because you have a turbo"
"What's stopping you from going forced induction? It's within the rules for this class"

"You only won because you picked a cheesy army, anyone can do that"
"So why didn't you build a better army?"

"Your team only wins because you have better recruits"
"Maybe your coaches should work a bit harder on the recruiting trail, that's part of the game"

And continue ad infinitum...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kombatwombat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

That's only true if your opponent is voluntarily handicapping themselves. Again, that's their prerogative. But you don't get to voluntarily handicap yourself and then whinge that you lost. If you want to take units because they're subpar, you should be ok with losing as long as you got to roll dice and make "pew pew" noises with your fluffy army.