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 play a mix of both casual and WAAC - when it is required.

In my local gaming club? I run a foot slogging Custodes force, with Allarus termites and even a venerable contemptor dread. The members play what they find to be decent or cool and we get new people learning/joining all the time so casual lists help break them in and learn.

A tournament that is marketed as competitive? You better believe I'll spam MSU Custodians squads and jet bikes, power stratagems and bring soup to ream you dry with no lube.

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

 Toofast wrote:
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.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
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.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It is not your responsibility, but the game is more fun if you do. Ideally GW could balance this thing so that such measures were not needed, but that's not the case.

Some people just need to understand (and accept) that competitive gaming is just a fraction of 40k.

40k is about assembling, painting and collecting toy soldiers. There's also the game section but a large part of it is about two friends that just want to enjoy some time together in a different way than playing a videogame, a board game or football in the backyard. Competitive game is also part of 40k, and I also love it, but it's just a fraction of it, not the only purpose of 40k.

I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

As Crimson said the best games are the closest ones, regardless of who wins at the end.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
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.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It's not our job to make our lists good for our opponent.
Why should we take that responsibility?
It works both ways.

kombatwombat wrote:

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

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!

I have to nitpick, but that isn't how this works. Let's say in 7th one person thought Jetbikes with Scatterlasers were the coolest and made a large list with that, and his opponent thought a Wych army on foot would be the coolest. Those two people meet and the Craftworld player would have wiped the floor with the Drukhari player. Hell, in this edition a player could play with Imperial Knights "because they are cool" and dominate their Grey Knights friend.

I have played those type of games(pick the coolest) and in those games it always comes down to who has better rules for their models. Nothing even about it.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

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

100%

Building the best list you can build doesn't win you the game before it starts but it does mean you haven't lost before it starts.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

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

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

But then you have basically excluded 90% of the units in the game. I'd rather not do that.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

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

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

No, the only practical way is to tailor each other list in order to get a balanced game. Both players create the entire game as they like, making their lists together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

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

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

But then you have basically excluded 90% of the units in the game. I'd rather not do that.

And lots of factions as well, since they're not all equally powerful at their best lists.

 Blackie wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

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

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

No, the only practical way is to tailor each other list in order to get a balanced game. Both players create the entire game as they like, making their lists together.

That's the better method but many people seem to be talking about pickup games where that really isn't an option - they wouldn't be having these issues if they were playing with friends (who aren't donkey caves).

 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.

No, see, this is not what anyone has ever had an issue with.

Looking up and ebaying a new netlist whenever one wins a tournament, or playing a completely skewed spam list with only one unit times however many you can fit in 2k, or knowing what's in your opponent's collection and stacking against it, are the three biggest "powergamer complaints" I see managing a large group of 40k players.

If someone says "man, I dislike powergamers" it's so strange to me that people think "oh, so anyone who makes a strong TAC list is a powergamer then, yeah, I get it, you're a jerk."

The guy that magnetizes his marines and swaps them to whatever is currently good in the codex, paints them a custom chapter so he can play different chapter tactics, and actively seeks competitive opponents to practice for events with: Great. Fine. Some of the best tournament-crushing players in the whole US play in my area and we have them at our tables all the time. None of the guys whose name I have read in a top 16 have ever driven a player away from my club, in fact they bring people in looking to play them.

The guys that are just hunting for the emotional high of a win, and can't actually handle competition, are the ones who suck to deal with. because the scummy dude who looks at his opponent's army list then swaps all the turrets on his russes and the heavy weapons on his HWTs around based on what they have isn't going to come in looking for a game against one of the tournament guys, he's going to look for someone new who hasn't caught on to his BS yet and he's going to give them a gak game, then we're never going to see that new player again.

 Blackie wrote:
I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

As Crimson said the best games are the closest ones, regardless of who wins at the end.

So much this.

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.

Judging from many, many discussions, that's exactly what people want. They want list building and combo-stacking to be the pinnacle of skill in the game, just like a deckbuilding game.

For me, I have zero interest in pure unfluffy WAAC lists. The major selling point for 40k as a game to me is the rich history since the game itself is one of the worst designed games I have ever seen. I'll build lists that try to match the background as much as possible, but since losing every game would just make me say feth this and quit, I have to give some thought to what is good or bad just to make sure that I don't get fed up with how badly armies are designed. I am old enough to remember when GW cared about that, and fondly recall many White Dwarf articles talking about the "spirit of the game" and how those who took the flexibility of army lists to powergame were missing the point of the hobby.

I remember the days when Army Composition and Sportsmanship were key parts of winning an event such that if you showed up to steamroll people with a min/maxed list that barely resembled the army you might win every game but would lose enough on comp that you wouldn't win the tournament, or that people who were rules lawyers and quibbled over the slightest things were dinged on Sportsmanship because they were making the game unfun. I firmly believe although this is another topic of discussion, that these things need to come back in some form. Given that Warhammer is a full-breadth hobby and not a CCG, to win a tournament should show that you are accomplished in all aspects of the hobby not just crunching out an "uber" list.

Again, WAAC isn't so much a set of actions, as a matter of attitude.

I've had games where I've been hopelessly outmatched in terms of army composition and player skill, and as a result seen my forces be buttered up and down the board. And I've still had a really, really good game.

I've had games where I've done the same to my opponent, and again, had a really, really good game.

The games that I haven't enjoyed have been against those seeking every advantage. Slow play. Rules Lawyering. Inappropriate Banter. Constant measuring and remeasuring forced upon me, as they take a far more casual approach. The old 'haha, you're just outside of Rapid Fire, but next turn I'll be, mysteriously, just inside charge range!'.

I don't mind people bringing well hard lists. I don't mind losing big, regardless of whether they're a 'better' player than me. It's only when someone is an obnoxious opponent that I won't fancy playing against them.

I'm in this for a hobby. My challenge in life comes from my career. I don't want to have to put up with unpleasant people when I'm not actually being paid (and paid quite well) to put up with unpleasant people. That's entirely regardless of what sort of list they've packed. A WAAC Fanatic will be just as joyless an opponent with an objectively soft list as a really good one.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I'm in this for a hobby. My challenge in life comes from my career. I don't want to have to put up with unpleasant people when I'm not actually being paid (and paid quite well) to put up with unpleasant people. That's entirely regardless of what sort of list they've packed. A WAAC Fanatic will be just as joyless an opponent with an objectively soft list as a really good one.

So much this. Some of my best games have come against players who absolutely disassembled my lists, but were effectively coaching me in real-time about how to do better ( and plan better) with them.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It is not your responsibility, but the game is more fun if you do. Ideally GW could balance this thing so that such measures were not needed, but that's not the case.

Spoken like somebody that's never played a TCG. A Yugioh deck that's themed around one of the characters isn't fun to play against BECAUSE how non-functional they are.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoken like somebody that's never played a TCG. A Yugioh deck that's themed around one of the characters isn't fun to play against BECAUSE how non-functional they are.

I used to play Magic aeons ago. Regardless, that's irrelevant. That something doesn't apply in Yougioh doesn't mean it couldn't apply in 40K; they're pretty damn different games.

40k, AoS, AT, Necro, Warmahords, Infinity, Bolt Action.

All require a level of personal effort above and beyond any TCG. For instance, we need to build and paint the models. We then put in hours of gaming to get better at it.

Now, nobody is saying you need to bring a soft list to any given game. And if you're doing a tournament, that's not in your interest.

But as I said above, it's your attitude and behaviour. If a person brings a well hard list every time, and smashes face every time, that's fine. That's their list, and it's to be respected. But if they're smashing soft lists, and then crowing about it like some kind of tactical genius, and their response to their opponent is little more than 'get gud, play2win'? That's.,....not terribly constructive. And given the hours we all put into our armies, actually kind of disrespectful to expect your opponents to only ever play at Your Level (apologies for the first person, I'm not having a direct go at you, just those that are problems)

MTG example. Used to be a group of us that'd being a couple of decks to the pub and enjoy a hand or three over drinks. Part of the Friday wind down. Good beer, good friends, fun games. Then some 'pro' players started showing up, and sucked all the fun out of it. Their decks were boring to fight. If they want that sort of game, great. Go for it. But, perhaps Friday Night In The Pub isn't the best time or place for it?

 Blackie wrote:

I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

It comes down to this for me. I think on some level, I play games to get beat. Winning a game trivially isn't really any fun, but losing because you intentionally held back isn't as fun as testing your limits. I want to be challenged, and while that can't happen every game, I find the experience I'm actually chasing is one where I give it my all whether that results in coming up short or winning by the skin of my teeth.

ValentineGames wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
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.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It's not our job to make our lists good for our opponent.
Why should we take that responsibility?
It works both ways.

No, it's your job to understand you're playing a game that has a defined winner and loser, and to plan accordingly. If you sandbag your list for fluff reasons, you have exactly ONE person to blame for any negative playing experience.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoken like somebody that's never played a TCG. A Yugioh deck that's themed around one of the characters isn't fun to play against BECAUSE how non-functional they are.

I used to play Magic aeons ago. Regardless, that's irrelevant. That something doesn't apply in Yougioh doesn't mean it couldn't apply in 40K; they're pretty damn different games.

The process is still the same though.
1. Defined parameters (point values compared to previous formats)
2. Army/deck building
3. Play


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
40k, AoS, AT, Necro, Warmahords, Infinity, Bolt Action.

All require a level of personal effort above and beyond any TCG. For instance, we need to build and paint the models. We then put in hours of gaming to get better at it.

Now, nobody is saying you need to bring a soft list to any given game. And if you're doing a tournament, that's not in your interest.

But as I said above, it's your attitude and behaviour. If a person brings a well hard list every time, and smashes face every time, that's fine. That's their list, and it's to be respected. But if they're smashing soft lists, and then crowing about it like some kind of tactical genius, and their response to their opponent is little more than 'get gud, play2win'? That's.,....not terribly constructive. And given the hours we all put into our armies, actually kind of disrespectful to expect your opponents to only ever play at Your Level (apologies for the first person, I'm not having a direct go at you, just those that are problems)

MTG example. Used to be a group of us that'd being a couple of decks to the pub and enjoy a hand or three over drinks. Part of the Friday wind down. Good beer, good friends, fun games. Then some 'pro' players started showing up, and sucked all the fun out of it. Their decks were boring to fight. If they want that sort of game, great. Go for it. But, perhaps Friday Night In The Pub isn't the best time or place for it?

Why isn't it the best time or place for it? The player built a deck that actually functions well, and everyone else is playing Magic.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

It comes down to this for me. I think on some level, I play games to get beat. Winning a game trivially isn't really any fun, but losing because you intentionally held back isn't as fun as testing your limits. I want to be challenged, and while that can't happen every game, I find the experience I'm actually chasing is one where I give it my all whether that results in coming up short or winning by the skin of my teeth.

Nah, you want to win, not to be challenged.

If you really want to be challenged, and you consider yourself a skilled player, try to win with non-optimized lists. That's a real challenge. I'm not saying field a trash list if your tipycal one is too strong, just tone it down a bit so you can prove yourself and your opponent will have the chance to prove himself as well. List building means nothing in the era of internet. When I started, in the 90s it was a thing, now you have immediate access to tactical discussions and tournament winning lists. There are no skills in list building anymore, unless you completely ignore the internet.

Slayer-Fan....

Because MTG, like Warhammer, is a hobby. And different people have different takes.

If you’re solely interested in soft wins, and hashing a ‘casual’ group’s fun, I really don’t get the appeal. We were there to unwind after a hard week’s work, ready for the weekend. None of us particularly work on our decks, and none of us ever really buy Singles to boost our deck.

My approach is to buy a Boost Box and FatPack for a given release. I find that usually gives me most of the cards I really want, and loads of build options. I have my pick, then let everyone else have a good riffle though.

A ‘pro’ player gains nothing by stomping us. We’re not interested in that level of play, and our decks reflect it. All it does is show their deck is indeed effective. Not the player though. Because they’re at no point challenged by us.

And that can be applied to TTG. If you really enjoy the tournament scene, and have a desire to place well every time? That’s perfectly cool, because that’s your hobby. And again, that’s to be respected. But if you only ever field your well ‘ard Tournament list in even pick up games, and consider hose victories? I just don’t get it.

Serously, I’m not trying or even attempting to denigrate your take on the hobby here. It’s just a mindset I don’t understand. The game takes two people. And that requires a sort of social contract. It’s incredibly rude to simply demand every possible opponent toes a certain line.

Now, if you arrange a game with me, and say ‘I’ve got a tournament coming up, so I’m looking to polish my list’? Awesome. I’ll do my best to bend my collection into something suitable. But that comes with the unspoken agreement that you’ll be happy to step in as an opponent for a highly narrative scenario I enjoy playing at some point in the future. A sort of, a-ha, you roll my dice, I’ll roll yours arrangement.

I hope you see where I’m coming from!

The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Otherwise what contract is there?

That we both agree to the meaning of the majority of the English language, for starters.

Practically everything is social contract.

 Crimson wrote:


Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!

I happen to think Imperial Knights and custodes jetbikes look cool. Or a Tau army with nothing but riptides, yvahra and broadsides. You happen to think a fluffy grey knight or necron army looks cool. So we're going to have an even game? Nope. Sometimes people might pick an army just because it looks cool, but end up with a top tier tournament list anyway while the opponent picks what they think looks cool and ends up with something at the bottom of the barrel. The only way to ensure a somewhat fair game is if both players bring a competitive list. I love the look of riptides and the yvahra. Am I the donkey-cave for taking 3 riptides and a yvahra because they look cool? Now people are going to call my list cheesy. So what's an acceptable amount of cheese? 3 riptides but drop the yvahra? Only 1 of each? Only 1 riptide? Who decides that? What if the only way I can field a 2k army is by using all the riptides I own? Unless both players have access to 4-5k points, those points include a bunch of suboptimal units, and they're willing to bring their entire collection to the store and then engage in a 30 minute philosophical discussion prior to the game on what is "too cheesy" (spoiler alert: that will never happen where I live or where I used to live, people want to just show up, throw down the 2k list they brought and start rolling dice), your way to play is rarely going to result in a balanced game. However, if both players bring what they feel is a competitive, tournament-worthy list, they can just show up, deploy, and start rolling dice.

TL;DR - Your insinuation that both players picking their army based on what looks cool will result in even games is myopic, asinine, and objectively false.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Otherwise what contract is there?

That we’re both there to have fun. To respect the effort each made in getting their army to the table. To respect each other’s hobby preferences.

To actually stick to the rules of the game (because they’re not Laws after all). To not touch each other’s models without permission. To not use each other’s dice without permission.

To be reasonably clean and fresh and not reeking of various bodily odours, so the experience isn’t physically unpleasant. To respect that each person has a time limit on their day, and that they may need faster play than normal.

To actually engage with the other player as a fellow human being, and an equal. To not be socially rude. To not piss yourself rather than go to the toilet. To not denigrate the other person’s decisions.

I mean, basically, how much time have you got tonight?

 Toofast wrote:
So what's an acceptable amount of cheese?

Well, as you're such a smart guy and a master list builder, you can probably asses the appropriate amount of cheese to ensure a fair game if you know that the opponent is bringing their Grey Knights.