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.

Why is taking a competitive min/maxed list to a game so frowned upon?
Shouldn't I be building the best army I can to try and beat you?
Why would I want to put terrible units in my list that don't help me or my army.

I guess I don't understand why whenever you bring a quality list to a game everyone calls cheese.
Why should/would I purposefully make my list bad?

Now playing against new players, yes maybe I would to give them a bit of an advantage, but against seasoned players?
I personally will never dumb down my list to play against anyone (except new players who are learning). I will not purposefully take bad units simply because they are perceived by some as "more fun".

I think it is not only bad for the hobby, but bad for competition at my LGS. I can't think of any other game where I would purposefully make myself bad at it. So why is 40k suddenly considered different?

[ Devil's Advocate ]

Sounds like you'd like to see all baseball players taking steroids!

[ / Devil's Advocate ]

Well I'm going to be TFG; but this topic has been beaten to death. Considering your record I don't think anyone should call your lists cheesey

Best way to handle games; make sure you actually talk to your opponent before the game and have some kind of 'mission briefing' even if its not an Apoc or Planetstrike game. That way you don't waste a few hours on a lopsided or more importantly "not fun" game; and you can screen the guy to see if he's a douche beforehand.

40k tournaments used to have an army list composition rule; not sure if they do anymore, where if you took more points in FOC choices other than troops you'd suffer in tournament points and your list would look 'cheesey'.

Me? As long as you fulfill the minimum requirements I don't really care what you field as long as we (and more importantly me) have FUN especially in a non-tournament setting.

There is nothing wrong with competitive armies, however there are things wrong with spam armies. These are unbalanced armies built to stomp anyone who is unprepared for them. (Lash Spam, Nob Bikers, Land Raider Spam, etc.) They typically aren't fun to play against as they turn a tactical game into rock paper scissors. There's no need to handicap yourself, just don't take a spam army. People usually don't feel bad if they lose to well designed and/or well played army. They will feel a little bitter when they lose to an army built around one uber unit or ability that a third grader could play.

Also, do bear in mind that the 40K hobby is bigger than just the game and different people put different levels of emphasis on it's different aspects.

As such, some people have armies consisting of the units they like to paint or a theme that appeals to them rather than the most powerful units.


All it means it that if you're playing a friendly you should have a look at the relative power-levels of your list in order to keep the game fun.

Take what you like, but don't be a tool about it.

Its not against the law to play a single list all the time, so no. If its tough to beat, its tough to beat.

I personally find two things dull however:
- always playing the same army list
- always facing the same army list

Mixing and matching units, finding how best to use different items - thats what I find fun! I also fundamentally disagree that there is 'one perfect list' for each and every codex.

But play how you have fun!

Spam armies have their place - force denial is an acceptable tactic. It can also be a little dull.

I thought we agreed there would be no more Journey Psych Outs?

We have a general rule at our LGS: don't be a dick.

If you have to ask yourself or one of your friends if an army is 'cheesy' or 'spammy', you're probably being a dick.

If what you are doing is asking permission to be a dick, you're probably being a dick and you shouldn't do whatever it is you're planning on doing that would be interpreted as a dickish thing.

Play hard, play well, don't be a dick; games are for funnin'.

I heard your sister's going out with SQUEAK!

Timmah wrote:Why is taking a competitive min/maxed list to a game so frowned upon?

Because each Tournament Gamer is always only one 20/0 Massacre away from joining the KKK.

They're an evil spiteful 'fringe' group who need to be removed from this hobby ASAP lest they turn us all into racist and incestuous misanthropes.

- This post brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia, 'Our Way is the ONLY Way'.

RxGhost wrote:I thought we agreed there would be no more Journey Psych Outs?

We have a general rule at our LGS: don't be a dick.

If you have to ask yourself or one of your friends if an army is 'cheesy' or 'spammy', you're probably being a dick.

If what you are doing is asking permission to be a dick, you're probably being a dick and you shouldn't do whatever it is you're planning on doing that would be interpreted as a dickish thing.

Play hard, play well, don't be a dick; games are for funnin'.

I heard your sister's going out with SQUEAK!

And here is the world famous 'If you play a powerful army, you're a bad person' argument...

It's about respect for your opponent.

There is little to no point in taking your, uh, competitive list, against a player who isn't fussed for stuff being 'optimal' as provided you are competent with your list, the outcome is stacked in your favour.

Now, if you let your opponent know the sort of level you would wish to play at, then fair enough. But equally, if your opponent has a limited collection of models, and created his army to a theme, you'd be a douche to demand he plays only your tournament level list.

It's about finding the various levels of fun for you and your opponent.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Timmah wrote:Why is taking a competitive min/maxed list to a game so frowned upon?

Because each Tournament Gamer is always only one 20/0 Massacre away from joining the KKK.

They're an evil spiteful 'fringe' group who need to be removed from this hobby ASAP lest they turn us all into racist and incestuous misanthropes.

- This post brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia, 'Our Way is the ONLY Way'.

I play every tournament I get a chance to join, and I frequently spam Land Raiders full of Blood Claws so I very much fit the mold of this type of player.

This comment however is some of the funniest gak I have read on a forum in awhile, and will be my new signature.

I really hope everyone gets that I was joking.

The intarwebz are a terrible thing when it comes to ascertaining the tone of one's post.

I was picking up what you were putting down. Does not make it any less hilarious.

skyth wrote:

RxGhost wrote:I thought we agreed there would be no more Journey Psych Outs?

We have a general rule at our LGS: don't be a dick.

If you have to ask yourself or one of your friends if an army is 'cheesy' or 'spammy', you're probably being a dick.

If what you are doing is asking permission to be a dick, you're probably being a dick and you shouldn't do whatever it is you're planning on doing that would be interpreted as a dickish thing.

Play hard, play well, don't be a dick; games are for funnin'.

I heard your sister's going out with SQUEAK!

And here is the world famous 'If you play a powerful army, you're a bad person' argument...

No, no. I think you misunderstand my intentions. What we usually hold ourselves to is: would this army be a good/fun thing to play against. We all want good competition, it's the best way to improve yourself, but we also want to have fun; we want everyone to have fun. There's nothing worse than looking across the table at your opponent and see that he is not only NOT enjoying himself, but he's looking for ways to get out of the whole situation because he's just not having fun anymore. For tournaments, though, we expect people to bring their best...but if you show up to a friendly 1000pt'er with 3 Fire Prisms and a Seer Council, we're probably going to tease you about it.

Personally, I've got a Tyranid build that hasn't lost in the last dozen games and I am desperate for someone to beat it, just so I can see where I can improve.

It's a matter of opponents. There are people I play against who would be insulted if I didn't bring a competative list. When I play them, I bring the leanest list I can, knowing that it is going to be a tactical game.

For friendly pick up games in stores and such, I bring a more characterful list.

I think that the argument stems from how the game has developed. Back in the old days, when we had to grind pigments by hand, the game had more of a role playing feel to it, creating lists that mimiced a 'historical' force. Thus was born the fluffy armies. Armies based on the background, regardless of whether or not they were effective. As tournament gaming ramped up, lists became leaner and leaner as tournament gamers looked for the greatest advantage. Speaking from my experience, this led to 2 sorts of armies at the FLGS; the fun, fluffy army list and the 'ard as nails list. When the two played, the outcome was not really in question. If tournament gamers wanted games, they had to 'tone down' their list.

I think it's mainly a matter of perception and ability. Some people play the game to put the models they've spent days or weeks painting on the table and push them around while rolling dice. Others seek to dominate their opponents and prove their worth as generals on the tabletop. Both have a place in the hobby but should recognize and respect each other. (Can't we just all get along?)

When I play local game store kid, I play for a draw. It's actually harder than it sounds to craft the battlefield that way. It doesn't give them false hope, but keeps them interested.


One other problem is that in many cases, the matchups devolve into rock, paper, scissors. When someone is loaded up a whole bunch in one area - IG gunline for example. The other guy spends the entire game removing models and feels like they can't do anything in return. Can lead to a not fun game if winning is the only goal. Remember rule 1. Everyone should have fun. I you play a list that denies your opponent the option of doing things, they can get miffed.


Lemme give you an example. I played in a 1k tournament last weekend. One of my opponents had 2 land raiders and a terminator squad in the game. I had orks. Poor matchup. I had very little that could actually affect AV14 - SAG and 2 power klaws. Wasn't a fun game (Although my SAG killing off 24 of my own orks was pretty funny). I drew the primary and took secondary and tertiary, but it turned into - can my orks roll high enough to penetrate the AV14 in time for the game to end. Just wasn't fun or interesting. On the other hand, in the next game, I played orks with no shooting and no vehicles. I tabled him by the end of my turn 2 (and my SAG mek finally killed his first enemies of the tournament - by launching himself across the table into combat with a 30 boy squad). Bad matchup. Not a fun game. Works both ways.

Bottom Line: Tournament - take what you want. People will deal, but don't expect them to be happy facing 5 monstrous critters at 1k points. Friendly game, build the list to suit the opponent. If they're not having fun, find out why not and make the adjustment next time - or don't play them again.

RxGhost wrote:

skyth wrote:

RxGhost wrote:We have a general rule at our LGS: don't be a dick.

If you have to ask yourself or one of your friends if an army is 'cheesy' or 'spammy', you're probably being a dick.

If what you are doing is asking permission to be a dick, you're probably being a dick and you shouldn't do whatever it is you're planning on doing that would be interpreted as a dickish thing.

Play hard, play well, don't be a dick; games are for funnin'.

I heard your sister's going out with SQUEAK!

And here is the world famous 'If you play a powerful army, you're a bad person' argument...

No, no. I think you misunderstand my intentions. What we usually hold ourselves to is: would this army be a good/fun thing to play against. We all want good competition, it's the best way to improve yourself, but we also want to have fun; we want everyone to have fun. There's nothing worse than looking across the table at your opponent and see that he is not only NOT enjoying himself, but he's looking for ways to get out of the whole situation because he's just not having fun anymore. For tournaments, though, we expect people to bring their best...but if you show up to a friendly 1000pt'er with 3 Fire Prisms and a Seer Council, we're probably going to tease you about it.

How is it possible to misunderstand being called a 'dick' if you take (Or think of taking) a powerful list?

Taking a min maxed list is plain boring for me so I try to add in a fun unit into most of my army lists: Warriors in nids, jetbikes for eldar, and wyches for DE.

There's a difference between playing a powerful list and playing an abusive list, and let's not deceive ourselves here, you (the royal, undirected you) know what you're doing when you type up that army list. Yeah, sure, it's subjective...to a point; One man's velveeta is another man's brie.

I've seen guys try and convince other players (usually inexperienced 'other players') to score with VP instead of KP because they KNEW it would give them an advantage: dick move.

I saw a guy bring a 5 TMC list in a 1000 pickup game against a 13 year old: dick move.

We used to know this one guy who routinely cheated. Fudged die rolls, blatant rules deception about his army, etc: dick move.

It's this "win at all costs, no matter what" mentality that is MURDERING this game and driving away new players and creative minds for little more than fleeting ego masturbation. Guess what? Also a dick move.

This game will live and die by the community that supports it, and you gotta' be one of the good guys because there's already plenty of the bad.

Cheating != writing a competitive lists. We're talking about competitive list writing, not mass douchery. Associating the two is disingenuous.

There are no unbalanced or "cheesy" lists, GW always playtests their lists extensively to make sure players are having maximum fun.

RxGhost wrote:

We have a general rule at our LGS: don't be a dick.

[quoet=JohnHwangDD ]

Take what you like, but don't be a tool about it.

Of course it's subjective. Since this is pretty much a community run game, it's up to any particular gaming community to 'enforce' their own code of conduct and behavior amongst the players.

It works both ways, you don't have to play with someone and they don't have to play with you, but without some kind of, I don't know, rules of engagement, there's gonna' be hurt feelings and bruised egos and that's not fun for anyone.

Don't mistake my use of 'dick' as an outright insult though, we're pretty loose with our language around here; what with our tongues planted firmly in our cheeks and our feet struggling to make room for themselves as well.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It's about respect for your opponent.

There is little to no point in taking your, uh, competitive list, against a player who isn't fussed for stuff being 'optimal' as provided you are competent with your list, the outcome is stacked in your favour.

Now, if you let your opponent know the sort of level you would wish to play at, then fair enough. But equally, if your opponent has a limited collection of models, and created his army to a theme, you'd be a douche to demand he plays only your tournament level list.

It's about finding the various levels of fun for you and your opponent.

COnversely, there's no point in taking a fun list if your oppponent is looking for a competative game.

I'm always amazed by the attitude of "you have to dumb down your list". Its never "hey, stop taking usless repentia(or fill in another crappy unit) and give me a competative game"

Why cant folks step up? Why does it always have to be step down?

Actually Carm, I blame the internet. Everyone is so convinced that THESE units are good and THOSE units are bad, and anyone who builds a list that deviates from whatever flavor of the minute is getting passed around here or on 'seer or wherever is a fool and the anti-Creeeeeeed. I'm not going to lie, I buy a lot of my models based on how good they look, or if they would be fun to paint or play. It's through experimenting with the game that you really get a feel for how these things function in the game.

I play army lists that would get laughed off the tactics forums and I win. It's about knowing what you can do and when to do it but just as importantly, when not to.

To me, playing a weak list would be one without options...an army that does not allow itself to adapt to situations or plan for certain counter tactics (even if the solution in avoidance, not everything has to die for you to win).

PapaNurgle wrote:Bottom Line: Tournament - take what you want. People will deal, but don't expect them to be happy facing 5 monstrous critters at 1k points. Friendly game, build the list to suit the opponent. If they're not having fun, find out why not and make the adjustment next time - or don't play them again.

This really sums it all up. It's about respecting the opponent you are playing and making sure everyone has fun. A little communication goes a long way. If you and your opponent both agree to take tooled up lists to spank each other with, then by all means. What rankles people is when they bring something just to have a little fun and get steamrolled by Nob Bikers in 3 turns. What was the point of even bringing the figs out?

Always make sure your opponent is on the same page as far as what type of game you're going to play, and you should have no problems.

GW always playtests their lists extensively to make sure players are having maximum fun.

I laughed.

HI all.
Before taking the most 'optimised' list to a game of 40k.
Ask yourself a few questions.

Are the army compositions lists and PV extensivley play tested and honed to produce the most ballanced game the developers are capable of.
(NO.)
Do the game developers say the game is developed for 'ballanced compative play'.
(NO.)
Can anyone find the most cost effective units in an army and 'spam' them to make a boring list to play and play against.
(YES)
Is wining a game of 40k make the only highlight in your otherwise drab life.
(I hope NOT!)
Is it better to play against like minded people.
(YES.)


By all means delude yourself into thinking its supremely clever to use the 40k game system in a way it was never intended to be used, to try to massage your ego.
And if you find a like minded groups of individuals , then have fun deluding yourselves even further.
If you want to play a wargame suitable for ballanced compatative play , then you would be best served by finding a rule set suitable for this type of game play.
(There are usualy some easy ways to tell.Most say 'for ballanced competative play we reccomend the following...' or have PV allocation formula etc.
Conversly 40k has 'The most important rule....', nuff said.)

40k is best when used for co-operative narrative play , and always has been. Because it has ALWAYS been writen for this type of game play. The devs say so , frequentley!

RxGhost wrote:Actually Carm, I blame the internet. Everyone is so convinced that THESE units are good and THOSE units are bad, and anyone who builds a list that deviates from whatever flavor of the minute is getting passed around here or on 'seer or wherever is a fool and the anti-Creeeeeeed. I'm not going to lie, I buy a lot of my models based on how good they look, or if they would be fun to paint or play. It's through experimenting with the game that you really get a feel for how these things function in the game.

I play army lists that would get laughed off the tactics forums and I win. It's about knowing what you can do and when to do it but just as importantly, when not to.

To me, playing a weak list would be one without options...an army that does not allow itself to adapt to situations or plan for certain counter tactics (even if the solution in avoidance, not everything has to die for you to win).

Weak arguement. The internet isnt to blame.

For example, I've tried a variety of units in my sisters army. The freak show stuff? Just doesnt cut in play. Its over cost and underpreformed.

I've tried. I *LOVE* the repentia idea and look. but 20pts for a 4+ model that goes last in combat doesnt work. It just doesnt. Whatever designer said he was taking down demon princes with the unit had to be playing drunk. I like the pentient engine-both concept and model. I OWN 6-7 of them. But they really dont work well. 80pts for a open top model-espiecially compared to dreads/the two ork type walkers/war walkers.....just doesnt work well.

You can play whatever you want. But dont whine when I do the same. And thats what I see alot around when the arguements crop up in folks that like to play competatively. We're suppose to throttle back. Its never you stepping your game up. Never.

You can experiment all you want, but a crappy unit is still crappy. Repentia will never get any better, even with 5th and cover saves. They just dont, no matter what I come up with.

Your going to have to define "without options" as weak. Long before it became popular, I was playing mech sisters. 3-4 units with combi-flamer, Hflamer and melta in rhinos, 3 exorcists, serpahim and cannoness. It has loads of tactical options even if many of the units look the same.

RxGhost wrote:Actually Carm, I blame the internet. Everyone is so convinced that THESE units are good and THOSE units are bad, and anyone who builds a list that deviates from whatever flavor of the minute is getting passed around here or on 'seer or wherever is a fool and the anti-Creeeeeeed. I'm not going to lie, I buy a lot of my models based on how good they look, or if they would be fun to paint or play. It's through experimenting with the game that you really get a feel for how these things function in the game.

I play army lists that would get laughed off the tactics forums and I win. It's about knowing what you can do and when to do it but just as importantly, when not to.

To me, playing a weak list would be one without options...an army that does not allow itself to adapt to situations or plan for certain counter tactics (even if the solution in avoidance, not everything has to die for you to win).

The thing is the internet communities are usually right on which units are good and which lists are good. A collective mass of people deciding on something is usually going to be more accurate than one persons opinion.

A lot of us can look at a unit and tell you how competitive its going to be. Its not like we need to play with it to decide. Look at the valkyrie. I am pretty sure everyone knows that its a power unit. Conversly look at something like space marine scouts. Point for point they are bad, however they have their uses. Most people can tell you how good something will be just by seeing the unit profile. We all don't need to test stuff.

You being able to play crappy lists to victory tells me 1 of 3 things:
1. Your lists aren't as bad as you assume
2. Your an amazing general
3. Your opponents suck

And on your last point. Congrats for agreeing with the community. Yes the worst lists are the ones that can't adapt. They have the one thing they do every game and are a 1 trick pony. Hence the move towards more units that can do it all. (see HF/MM speeders ect) However this conclusion was came through by the community and by building tough lists and throwing the cheesiest armies at each other. Yet you don't seem to want people to evovle in their gameplay. We should just take w/e is "cool looking" and leave it at that. (a fine way to play if you want, but don't hate people who don't like that playstyle.)

Lanrak wrote:


By all means delude yourself into thinking its supremely clever to use the 40k game system in a way it was never intended to be used, to try to massage your ego.

The only deluded person in the thread, is you. If its legal its legal- therefore it was actually meant to be played that way.

If you want to play a wargame suitable for ballanced compatative play , then you would be best served by finding a rule set suitable for this type of game play.
(There are usualy some easy ways to tell.Most say 'for ballanced competative play we reccomend the following...' or have PV allocation formula etc.
Conversly 40k has 'The most important rule....', nuff said.)

IN that case, if its not suppose to be for competative play, perhaps GW should stop all support and sponsoring tournments. You know, competative play?

You cant have it both ways....