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.

mk2 wrote:

Do you play in tournaments ? They are awesome and you will find like minded players .

I play in local tourneys, yes.

GTs? I don't really have any desire to play against 6 Identical GK lists. Either I take a Non-GK list and while I'm sure I can win a few games, there's probably no way I'll place, or I take a GK list and just play mirror matches where the winner is determined by who wins the dice roll to go first.

Plus I'm not that great of a painter, so I'm just going to lose points for that.

zeekill wrote:Sorry I should have been more clear. I assume the gaunt horde is fun because you get to roll lots of dice and make lots of attacks and kill lots of stuff. But that's why its not fun, because it doesn't do that.

Funny - it did when I proxied it.

Footslogging troops towards your opponent is not very fun. Move 6, Run D6, remove models. Move 6, Run D6, remove models. Move 6, Run D6, remove models. Its not even fun from a tactical standpoint in addition to a "I want to win" standpoint.

Its fun for me, because even after the losses I get to throw lots of dice.

Also gaunts, even 30 of them (90 attacks), only glance 2-3 times if the rhino moved 12"

It's amusing you think you'll always get 12" of movement every turn, and still be able to block assaults. While giving your own units clear firing lanes.

-Loki- wrote:

zeekill wrote:No. Its most fun when I'm winning though.
Also considering my W/L ratio is at least 20:1, I kinda get looked up to by newer players for advice. Feels nice.

You see, to me, as soon as you start considering your win/loss ratio, you've stopped playing the game to have fun. You might have fun when winning, but it's secondary to actually winning. You're playing to win, and might just occasionally eek some fun out of it on the way.

This isn't a lifestyle. You can't make a living out of winning. It's a social game. If I'm going to do something in my spare time, I make sure it's fun, otherwise I might as well just be at work, I make sure it's enjoyable even if I'm not winning.

But hey, that's my opinion.

No,no,no. I just pulled that number out of my a$$. I'm just saying that I win much more than tie or lose, so I get looked up to, which can feel nice.

Milisim wrote:You said you build armies to win at all costs.... by taking Tau you give yourself that need by fielding as many suits as possible with the best loadouts etc..... You build your Tau army to do the most damage per point you possibly can....

Because we all know the codex is weak.... this in turn gives your opponent a chance to have fun because they are not WAAC players... So both sides get what they need out of the hobby....

Getting a DRAW with Tau against GK, SW, BA, DE etc.... Are in fact WINS! Striving for the actual WIN with Tau on a consistent basis would make you a Fantastic player. Winning with the GK most of the time is ho hum at best, since most player expect you to win.

There's a guy who plays at my store who just won two local tournaments in a row with his Tau army. Does this make him awesome?

That said, a lot of the players at my store are extremely good, and when they play a newer guy like me, they try to tone their list down so they don't curve stomp us. That said, they still won't go easy on you, as they believe its the best way to make us better at the game. They're really nice guys, and when we inevitably lose, they try to be nice about it, and offer us advice as well as being as sporting as they can. We've started a saying where "if you want to win, you go play at the other stores. If you want to play a tense game where you have to play at 250%, you play here."

So you dont go to GT's because you are afraid of not placing?

So you want to be the SOLE Power gamer who wins at all costs but refuse to play someone who is EXACTLY like you ?


Not quite sure im getting the point of this thread?

Your a WAAC player who moans when people bitch about you being a WAAC player.

We tell you to go to a tournament and play other WAAC players and you refuse because they are all WAAC players?

We tell you to play weaker codexes but still be a WAAC player, so everyone has a chance, and you refuse because you cant win with a weak codex?


What do you want us to say?

"Sorry for NOT being a WAAC player and we bow down to you for being the guiding light of all that is holy and 40k. Thank you Oh mighty one for showing us how to have FUN with our plastic soldiers in ways we never imagined!!!!"

?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes that guy who won 2 local tournaments with his Tau.... Tell him he is awesome from me! most likely deserves it!

zeekill wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

zeekill wrote:
Because then you don't win...

And here we get to the ugly nugget of truth.

The desire to win is so strong that you couldn't consider taking a less powerful list, because that might reduce the margin you win by.

Why wouldn't you want to make it hard on yourself? Do you always play video games on the 'easy' setting?

No, on the contrary. I usually play it on the hardest setting that it is actually able to be beaten on.

Again, I dont take GK and play it against the kids that started playing 3 days ago. I take SW, DE, and soon Necrons and play against the people that also make similarly-powerful lists

The issue is that some people think it is a sin to build powerful lists

Tell yourself whatever helps you get to sleep at night mate, but the second you forgo a challenge because it makes it harder to win, you might as well be playing it on easy mode.

Personally, I have a very low opinion of anyone who ignores the background, ignores the aesthetics of a model, and doesn't want a challenge.

Why is everyone jumping so hard on the OP? He asked a simple question, and gave his reasons for disagreeing with the reasons given to disagreeing with what he said. All of a sudden he's a gigantic jerk? I seem to have missed something.

Milisim wrote:
We tell you to go to a tournament and play other WAAC players and you refuse because they are all WAAC players?

The GK codex is so broken that it skewed the entire metagame. Here is the metagame, assuming P1 and P2 are of equal skill and not too skewed dice rolls:

Player 1: GK
Player 2: not GK
Player 1 Wins

I don't like mirror matches.
I want a decent chance to place well in the tourney if I'm gonna drive out for 2 days and pay an entrance fee.
So I'm kinda stuck on the GT front.

Local tourneys are pretty fun, as its not dominated by everyone playing GK, so I bring SW/DE to those and its pretty evenly matched in terms of lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shrike325 wrote:Why is everyone jumping so hard on the OP? He asked a simple question, and gave his reasons for disagreeing with the reasons given to disagreeing with what he said. All of a sudden he's a gigantic jerk? I seem to have missed something.

Thanks buddy

His question was why do people field non optimized lists....

Everyone gave him answers as to why they field them or how he can still play an optimized list but simply with a weaker codex...

He then goes on about WINNING is all that matters and should matter. If you arent playing to win then your a Loser is about a good summary....

Needless to say none of us feel like a loser =]

Shrike325 wrote:I can't speak for them, but when I'm playing my goal is for everyone to have fun, and (having been on the receiving end a few times) just getting stomped isn't fun.

This really gets to the heart of the issue at hand, I think.

Getting stomped just isn't fun. Losing and losing dramatically are one thing, but placing your models on the table only to remove them is something else. That's like playing 52 card pickup with 40k models. I'd wager very, very few players find that idea "fun."

Now here's where the issue of lists comes into play:

A casual, "fun" list against another casual, "fun" list can be an awesome experience. Things that would normally never happen do happen, and the game is ruled by the wacky, absurd, and downright hilarious. Often, nobody ends up truly playing for the mission objectives, and new objectives come into play ("Hey, that guardsman was my friend. Objectives be damned, lets go get those bastards!", etc). At least for me, this is why I sometimes love running uncompetitive units or lists.

A competitive list against another competitive list can also be fun. In fact, it's my preferred style of play. Both players have sought to maximize the offensive, defensive, and/or tactical power of their respective armies, and the collision of two such lists is fast-paced and action-packed. IMHO, it can really be a case of "Perfect Sword vs Perfect Shield" and the games always lend themselves to intense rematches. This is part of the reason I most often run competitive or quasi-competitive lists.

The real problem shows up when a casual list faces a competitive list. Essentially, what typically happens is one army runs around like a chicken with it's head cut off and the other army sits back and blows apart the metaphorical chicken with a metaphorical bazooka. The best example I can think of was my friend's well-optimized venom-spam list against my other friend's mono-CC Daemons army. The daemons, with no shooting whatsoever, and no speed to catch the armada of skimmers, just stood around and got shot to pieces without ever being able to retaliate. Like I said before: 52-card pickup with 40k models.

That last scenario is why I have a real problem with people who "condemn" competitive list-building. A fun list, as far as I'm concerned, is only fun if it can do the thing that I designed it to do. If I design a fluffy Black Templars Black Tide list (no longer considered competitive in 5th edition), I'd like to be able to overwhelm and destroy at least a few enemy units in my waves of power-armored death. I'd like to surround enemy units and see the look on my opponent's face when I'm rolling and rerolling dozens of dice. If I design a fluffy Thousand Sons CSM list, I want to enjoy the feeling of marching forward my Sorcerer warcoven, flanked by a hail of infernal warp-bolts, tossing around silly and absurd psychic powers and turning enemy special characters into Chaos Spawn.

But that isn't what happens if my opponent brings a competitive list (which is all my opponents unless I discuss it with them first). What happens is my Templars slowly drag themselves across the battlefield, whittled down every turn only to get shamefully destroyed in close combat. My Thousand Sons Sorcerers get shut down by psychic defense and my Rubric marines get overwhelmed by superior shooting. That isn't fun, not because I lose, but because my list fails to do anything interesting. That's why I play competitive lists. I don't just give up and say "oh well, it doesn't matter because my opponent was running a stupid WAAC list; those are no fun to play against." I build better lists; competitive lists. Then both my opponents and I have fun when we play.

EDIT: Whoa wall of text. TL;DR: "Fun" lists are only fun against other "fun" lists. If your opponents commonly bring competitive lists, it isn't "sinful" to commonly use lists to match them.

Milisim wrote:His question was why do people field non optimized lists....

Everyone gave him answers as to why they field them or how he can still play an optimized list but simply with a weaker codex...

He then goes on about WINNING is all that matters and should matter. If you arent playing to win then your a Loser is about a good summary....

Needless to say none of us feel like a loser =]

I'm sorry, but I never called anyone a loser.
If you feel I'm in the wrong, that's fine, but don't say I insulted people when I didn't please

There's a simple test for me:

Will the other guy have a good time as well?


For example. I'm in the FLGS, and a newish player wants to play a pickup game, to improve his game. He's been playing for about 2 weeks, and has a few models, but can't afford everything in the codex, and hasn't much idea of what units are good at what.

Do you:

1/. Pull out an optimized tournament list designed for competitive play against other people who are well-versed with the game and can afford the units they want to use, curbstomp the new guy, then say something dickish about losing building character while handing him whatever netlist is currently popular and telling him that he has to have those units to stand a chance..

2/. Take a guess at his skill level, and build a list that will give him a fair game, while allowing him to try out his existing units and learn their capabilities. Make suggestions on other units to try against specific units, and help him with the rules, including pointing out that taking X action will improve his chances, or suggesting targets (in his favour, not yours ) for his big guns.

If you only derive fun from curbstomping the opposition, regardless of theri skill level then you're not playing a game unless the other player has the same attitude.

An example- My wife plays occasionally. She likes playing the game well enough, but got beaten so badly last game that she feels that the game isn't that much fun. In that case it was a combination of good rolling on my part and inexperience on hers. Our next game I'm allowing a 500 pt handicap, playing her at 1000 pts to her 1500, to allow for her inexperience and the fact i'm pretty good at the game.

If all I cared about was my win/loss ratio she'd likely never play again.

A lot of new players run into WAAC jackasses, grow discouraged and quit, or wind up idolizing the 'big kid in the playground' and trying to become like them as junior WAACs. And we wonder why the game is becoming more and more WAAC.

I play 40K for a combination of the fun and the challenge. I find it far more satisfying to win by a narrowly fought, close game against an opponent who's really got into the game than curbstomping someone by a huge margin.

Destroying a WAAC netlister who's only in it for the win/loss bragging rights with a suboptimal fluffy list is even more satisfying to me, as it proves mathhammer wrong


I like to win, but it's not mandatory for me to have had an enjoyable game


**edit for spelling/clarity**

zeekill wrote:

Milisim wrote:
We tell you to go to a tournament and play other WAAC players and you refuse because they are all WAAC players?

The GK codex is so broken that it skewed the entire metagame. Here is the metagame, assuming P1 and P2 are of equal skill and not too skewed dice rolls:

Player 1: GK
Player 2: not GK
Player 1 Wins

I don't like mirror matches.
I want a decent chance to place well in the tourney if I'm gonna drive out for 2 days and pay an entrance fee.
So I'm kinda stuck on the GT front.

Local tourneys are pretty fun, as its not dominated by everyone playing GK, so I bring SW/DE to those and its pretty evenly matched in terms of lists.


[

That's ridiculous. GK are not so op its an autowin. You seriously have a skewed view if you believe that. SW,DE, BA and IG all can easily hang with GK. They all can bring a ton of firepower.

Besides in all fairness Tau stack up pretty well against GK...

Hight STR weapons with Low AP vs Lower model count = Good games....

There you go more reason to take Tau.... so you can dethrone the OP GK at the GTs =]

Draigo wrote:
That's ridiculous. GK are not so op its an autowin. You seriously have a skewed view if you believe that. SW,DE, BA and IG all can easily hang with GK. They all can bring a ton of firepower.

SW and BA probably do have a chance. But they are still at a pretty big disadvantage because of all the anti-AV11 + power weapons in CC.

IG have less of a chance, blobs destroyed by purifiers, and mobile S7 generally being pretty effective against IG vehicles

DE, zero. Absolutely zero chance. Psybacks, Psycannons, Psyfleman Dreads all annihilate AV 10/11 Open-Topped, and all GK vehicles are practically immune to suppression

zeekill wrote:

Draigo wrote:
That's ridiculous. GK are not so op its an autowin. You seriously have a skewed view if you believe that. SW,DE, BA and IG all can easily hang with GK. They all can bring a ton of firepower.

SW and BA probably do have a chance. But they are still at a disadvantage because of all the anti-AV11 + power weapons in CC

IG have less of a chance, blobs destroyed by purifiers, and mobile S7 generally being pretty effective against IG vehicles

DE, zero. Absolutely zero chance. Psybacks, Psycannons, Psyfleman Dreads all annihilate AV 10/11 Open-Topped, and all GK vehicles are practically immune to suppression

Your reason for SW and BA being at a disadvantage goes both ways.
Long fangs will wreck the gk vehicles just as well as having 3+ psyfleman if not better since DoW scenario doesnt affect them as much. The only part they have a weakness against is halberds and DCA but make up for it with better shooting at all ranges.
IG blobs are not automatically losing to CF either. lol It wounds on a 4+. So theres nothing automatic there either. Plus msu of purifiers will get demolished. Big ones can be demolished if all the heavy weapons do their job which I'm pretty sure they have a good shot at.
DE are not zero. lol You really havent played aginst them enough if you believe that. You really need to go play at tournaments and not just stay among your following. Broaden your horizons and learn instead of being happy that you have a neat record vs people you ackowledge as lessers.

I've stomped GK HARD with DE

I've had my butt handed to me by them too

A lot depends on the player, and how the dice are rolling that night.

zeekill wrote:

Draigo wrote:
That's ridiculous. GK are not so op its an autowin. You seriously have a skewed view if you believe that. SW,DE, BA and IG all can easily hang with GK. They all can bring a ton of firepower.

SW and BA probably do have a chance. But they are still at a pretty big disadvantage because of all the anti-AV11 + power weapons in CC.

IG have less of a chance, blobs destroyed by purifiers, and mobile S7 generally being pretty effective against IG vehicles

DE, zero. Absolutely zero chance. Psybacks, Psycannons, Psyfleman Dreads all annihilate AV 10/11 Open-Topped, and all GK vehicles are practically immune to suppression

Yeah nids and necrons have no chance either.
Or maybe they do - you should read some of the batreps here. GK are not auto wins.

Edit: plus, you asked why it's fun. We've responded. And you're saying we're wrong? wat.

I play DE as well as Tau... I would say that anyone who thinks AV10 = Loss is CRAZY!

When I can field 20+ Dark Lances at 1500 pts... run that with 70 plus shots from Venom Cannons and a bunch of tarpit wyches....... Incubi for 12-15 hits with POWER WEAPONS!

Come on!

If your a WAAC and cant win with DE then you need to retire and go play with yourself cause youll always win there!

Draigo wrote:

Your reason for SW and BA being at a disadvantage goes both ways.
Long fangs will wreck the gk vehicles just as well as having 3+ psyfleman if not better since DoW scenario doesnt affect them as much. The only part they have a weakness against is halberds and DCA but make up for it with better shooting at all ranges.
IG blobs are not automatically losing to CF either. lol It wounds on a 4+. So theres nothing automatic there either. Plus msu of purifiers will get demolished. Big ones can be demolished if all the heavy weapons do their job which I'm pretty sure they have a good shot at.
DE are not zero. lol You really havent played aginst them enough if you believe that. You really need to go play at tournaments and not just stay among your following. Broaden your horizons and learn instead of being happy that you have a neat record vs people you ackowledge as lessers.

Idk EVERYTHING so I'm not going to pretend like I do, but what I do know is:

Long Fangs have a distinct disadvantage in DoW - they can't fire on the turn they walk on the board. They also are hurt by mass fire (psybacks)

Can't say anything the effectiveness of IG, they are probably one of the armies I see least.

Still have to say DE are zero, their paper skimmers drop like flies to GK S6/7/8 spam and so does their infantry to mass stormbolters/psycannons/psybacks. If wyches get close, throw a dreadnought at them in CC, or shoot them to death with psybacks. Instantly dealt with.

_____________________
Someone said 20 Lances.
~13.3 Hits (3+)
~2 Glance + ~4 Pen(3+/4+ on AV11)
Possibility of cover?
Then, for glances you need 5+ to do damage. For pens you need 3+ (But idc about Immobilized because I can shoot you anyway)

Ascalam wrote:There's a simple test for me:

Will the other guy have a good time as well?


For example. I'm in the FLGS, and a newish player wants to play a pickup game, to improve his game. He's been playing for about 2 weeks, and has a few models, but can't afford everything in the codex, and hasn't much idea of what units are good at what.

Do you:

1/. Pull out an optimized tournament list designed for competitive play against other people who are well-versed with the game and can afford the units they want to use, curbstomp the new guy, then say something dickish about losing building character while handing him whatever netlist is currently popular and telling him that he has to have those units to stand a chance..

2/. Take a guess at his skill level, and build a list that will give him a fair game, while allowing him to try out his existing units and learn their capabilities. Make suggestions on other units to try against specific units, and help him with the rules, including pointing out that taking X action will improve his chances, or suggesting targets (in his favour, not yours ) for his big guns.

If you only derive fun from curbstomping the opposition, regardless of theri skill level then you're not playing a game unless the other player has the same attitude.

That's a reasonable test, I agree, but it works both ways. You're assuming that the player looking for a game is new to 40k. If we flip that scenario around, the result looks a little different.

Imagine that a veteran player is looking for a game. He's been playing for a few years, and knows the ins and outs of most of the armies 40k has to offer. He's looking to test his mettle in a good old-fashioned pickup game.

Do you:

1): Pull out a list with zero unit synergy, no consistent wargear, and a complete lack of anti-tank weapons (but a whole lot of cool models and "fun" wargear), lose horribly without any of your models doing what you wanted them to do (a waste of your time and his), then say something dickish about everybody being a WAAC gamer and telling him that he's the reason 40k isn't fun anymore...

2): Pull out an efficient, killy, competitive list and give his army a run for its money, showing little mercy (as you are shown none), and having an intense, all-out fight that give him a really good idea of what units and combinations worked well (or poorly), and in the end having a really close, visceral game.

Just trying to point out that people with competitive lists aren't always the ones who look like jerks. It's all about approaching each opponent with the proper level of equality.

*Also I don't mean to patronize your post, I just felt that the same format would help make the comparison more clear.

Another thought:

You said that your win/loss is about 20:1.

This would seem to indicate that yo aren't playing at your level. Playing against other people at the same level would result in something closer to 1:1

This would either indicate that you are deliberately playing weaker/less experienced opponents to provide an easy win, or that you are the big fish in a small pond, and need to find some better players

Refusing to pay mirrormatches, and yet playing what is widely held to be the currently most powerful codex would also seem to indicate that you don't want an equal challenge.

My advice is to either get used to being known as that WAAC guy who refuses to take an even fight, or to lighten up a bit about winning being the be all and end all. If your opponents decide that they have no chance agaisnt you, and aren't the stubborn type that will keep plugging away anyway, you'll run out of opponents

You keep naming best case scenario.

In the case of DE they outrange gk, flickerfield, Shadow(which reduces your range when shooting at them), etc.

You also seem to forget gk die to 100 + splinter shots just as much as theirs but they have more troops. If you throw a dreadnaught at wyches great! That means you're not shotting their blasterborns and ravagers. They don't call wyches a tarpit for no reason.

Long Fangs are hurt by psybacks? You don't say but that means you have to get through the rest of the army and not get shot by those long fangs first. lol Those missiles/lascanons etc work awful well on that low av.

Ascalam wrote:Another thought:

You said that your win/loss is about 20:1.

This would seem to indicate that yo aren't playing at your level. Playing against other people at the same level would result in something closer to 1:1

This would either indicate that you are deliberately playing weaker/less experienced opponents to provide an easy win, or that you are the big fish in a small pond, and need to find some better players

Refusing to pay mirrormatches, and yet playing what is widely held to be the currently most powerful codex would also seem to indicate that you don't want an equal challenge.

My advice is to either get used to being known as that WAAC guy who refuses to take an even fight, or to lighten up a bit about winning being the be all and end all. If your opponents decide that they have no chance agaisnt you, and aren't the stubborn type that will keep plugging away anyway, you'll run out of opponents

Not refusing Mirrors, I just don't particularly enjoy them.

More than I would like, mirror matches come down to who goes first... Obviously not 80% of the time or anything, but a good 40-50%? Yea.

I really just enjoy fielding new lists and playing different armies. I get bored running the same list again and again especially if it's been winning, specifically if it's been losing hardcore. I have a couple of kommando lists that are generally crap but trying to win with them brings me joy, because sometimes I pull it off, and that feels so much better then when my horde and nob bikers pull out a win. Or winning with flash gitz and warpheads is so VEGAS like for me it really can get under my skin the horrible rolling during a regular game, but when I play with lists that are so random in the way of what I might do with each roll I even find rolling horribly something to laugh at. As upset as I get when my warphead kills himself and the boys around him, I still find it incredibly funny.
Yes I would like to win, but I don't mind losing. If I don't lose I get bored with the game. I found that happened to me last year when I went on a winning streak, even with new lists. My opponents finally started fielding better lists as they got more familiar with their armies, and after a few draws and a loss, I found a desire to start playing again.
So I don't understand why it would be considered "fun" to always win. Though I do understand that each individual has a different definition of "Fun" and can respect that mine defers with others.
I have no problem with a person fielding a Tournament ready army in a friendly game, I would not however want to continuously play that person if they just kept fielding the same units. It becomes repetitive and somewhat boring.
Perhaps that is what some people mean when they attempt to criticise people who keep fielding the same armada. It would be nice to have different gaming experiences each time, and perhaps interesting to play with the many choices each codex provides.

Xca|iber wrote:

Ascalam wrote:There's a simple test for me:

Will the other guy have a good time as well?


For example. I'm in the FLGS, and a newish player wants to play a pickup game, to improve his game. He's been playing for about 2 weeks, and has a few models, but can't afford everything in the codex, and hasn't much idea of what units are good at what.

Do you:

1/. Pull out an optimized tournament list designed for competitive play against other people who are well-versed with the game and can afford the units they want to use, curbstomp the new guy, then say something dickish about losing building character while handing him whatever netlist is currently popular and telling him that he has to have those units to stand a chance..

2/. Take a guess at his skill level, and build a list that will give him a fair game, while allowing him to try out his existing units and learn their capabilities. Make suggestions on other units to try against specific units, and help him with the rules, including pointing out that taking X action will improve his chances, or suggesting targets (in his favour, not yours ) for his big guns.

If you only derive fun from curbstomping the opposition, regardless of theri skill level then you're not playing a game unless the other player has the same attitude.

That's a reasonable test, I agree, but it works both ways. You're assuming that the player looking for a game is new to 40k. If we flip that scenario around, the result looks a little different.

Imagine that a veteran player is looking for a game. He's been playing for a few years, and knows the ins and outs of most of the armies 40k has to offer. He's looking to test his mettle in a good old-fashioned pickup game.

Do you:

1): Pull out a list with zero unit synergy, no consistent wargear, and a complete lack of anti-tank weapons (but a whole lot of cool models and "fun" wargear), lose horribly without any of your models doing what you wanted them to do (a waste of your time and his), then say something dickish about everybody being a WAAC gamer and telling him that he's the reason 40k isn't fun anymore...

2): Pull out an efficient, killy, competitive list and give his army a run for its money, showing little mercy (as you are shown none), and having an intense, all-out fight that give him a really good idea of what units and combinations worked well (or poorly), and in the end having a really close, visceral game.

Just trying to point out that people with competitive lists aren't always the ones who look like jerks. It's all about approaching each opponent with the proper level of equality.

*Also I don't mean to patronize your post, I just felt that the same format would help make the comparison more clear.

Fair enough.

In that case i would assess his skill experience, and ask him how hardball he likes his games.

I would then build/select a list that would best match his skill and experience and give him a good match

If he liked it hardball i would dig out a tourney list. If 'no mercy' was his preference, no mercy would be fine by me. I just don't assume this as the default in every pickup game

I've been playing 40K since Rogue Trader. I was at one point (in about 3rd ed i think) a WAAC a-hole myself. My advice was from someone who's been there

Your example does however assume i'd lose with my fun list, and that i'd say something dickish about him if i lost Not generally the case

My tournament lists tend to be built non-optimized too, from units I enjoy but that are generally regarded as being terrible

Draigo wrote:You keep naming best case scenario.

In the case of DE they outrange gk, flickerfield, Shadow(which reduces your range when shooting at them), etc.

You also seem to forget gk die to 100 + splinter shots just as much as theirs but they have more troops. If you throw a dreadnaught at wyches great! That means you're not shotting their blasterborns and ravagers. They don't call wyches a tarpit for no reason.

Long Fangs are hurt by psybacks? You don't say but that means you have to get through the rest of the army and not get shot by those long fangs first. lol Those missiles/lascanons etc work awful well on that low av.

DE Lances have a 36" range. Psybacks have 36", Dreads have 48." Psycannons have 12" drive up + 24" if I need the extra firepower.

SW are a good match for GK at >24" range. I was just commenting before that DoW hurts the LF, not helps them. The psybacks dont have much else to shoot for the first few turns so softening the LF isn't bad.

OMG the sky is falling!

I'm with Draigo on this one!


If you dont like playing with the best against the best as its boring and you wont fight as Tau cause they dont WIN... WTH!

You dont ENJOY playing mirror matches....

People dont ENJOY spamming the same old list all day because it wins the most games....

Whats the difference?

Milisim wrote:OMG the sky is falling!

I'm with Draigo on this one!


If you dont like playing with the best against the best as its boring and you wont fight as Tau cause they dont WIN... WTH!

You dont ENJOY playing mirror matches....

People dont ENJOY spamming the same old list all day because it wins the most games....

Whats the difference?

Because not enjoying mirror matches does not handicap my list, and not enjoying mirror matches does not get so much hate from those that like them as "WAAC" as people like to call it is hated by people that dont play competitive lists
------
I am quite enjoying this,
But alas, I need to sleep.
Everyone feel free to post more and I'll be back tomorrow in the morning or maybe afternoon.

I believe this is actually a question of psychology. Related to the above "Fun V. Fun, Comp. V. Comp." post, and to a little something called Empathy.

Empathy is the ability to share another's feelings. In gaming, this Other is the opponent, generally speaking. Nobody likes getting stomped, Leafblowered or Purified on their first or second turns- that's pretty much accepted fact. And it's common sense that WAAC lists will only be stood up to by other WAAC lists, while Casual (because 'fun' is already preferencial) lists generally match up well against Casual lists.

Thing is, everybody has a different level of Empathy. Sociopaths (not psychopaths, that's something different) exhibit a lack of Empathy, while folks with Aspberger's Syndrome exhibit enormous Empathy, but lack the tools to easily interpret the emotions to empathize with. There's a whole range of 'shades' between these, and other points as well, and no two people will stand on the same point.

Zeekill apparently leans towards the Sociopathy side of things, being introverted and focused on his own emotions while playing a game. I wish to stress, again, that this is in no way a bad thing. But it means that, for him, the game is about his own personal goals, his own successes and failures. When playing a match, each model he loses is a failure, and each enemy model that is lost is a success. Similarly, on a larger scale, each game won is a success and each game lost is a failure. This is reinforced by Tournament play, where money is lost when losing and gained when winning, and by the admiration of his peers and those younger than he, garnered by winning games.

Someone like myself, however, who leans much farther towards the Empathic side of things (I was ||this close to being diagnosed with Aspberger's in my youth) will be paying much more attention to our opponent. Because of this, we'll have a different view of Good/Bad within the game, more like a pattern of opposing checks to the Zeekill-style of straight halves. We feel encouraged and happy when both players are having successes and failures in equal measure- i.e. a close-fought game, where either both sides are doing well, succeeding at most of their endeavors or both sides are doing poorly, failing to do anything to the other. We do not have fun when either of the sides is not having fun, because if we're losing terribly, we feel bad, and if the enemy is losing terribly, we also feel bad. Heck, I had a game where my fluffy Ork list (Flashgitz, Tankbustas, etc.) was losing horribly to a GK tourney list, and I didn't have much fun simply because I was playing too casually and not giving enough of a challenge to the GK player. I could tell he was somewhat bored as the outcome was clear, and that dampened my own spirits.

And so, the answer to why some people play non-competitive lists is thus: People that are less Empathetic will generally build and play Competitive lists, and don't see the point in Casual lists, because they gain enjoyment from their own successes- even against another Competitive list, their own Comp list will generally do what they've asked of it, which is, to them, a success- and they have a higher chance of winning the overall game, which will also be a success. People that are more Empathetic will often enjoy building and playing Casual lists, as those types of lists allow the opponent to have more successes, and thus feel better. These casual lists will often contain the more random, even self-defeating units (SAGs, Chaos Dreds, Skaven everything) because when the unit performs well, it's a success, and when it performs against its owner, well that units doing something well, while the opponent succeeds in having their opponent do poorly.

tl;dr: Those that focus on themselves tend to be more Competitive, those that worry about their opponents' success tend to enjoy Casual lists.