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.

Milisim wrote:Trade your lame Knights and other OP armies in, buy a Tau and Eldar army.....

Go play 50 games with each army....


If you win more than you lose.... your a good player.

Being 10-3-1 with GK means NOTHING to anyone who cares, since most players just see the stats as earned through playing a op codex.

You can also try out Daemons too.
If you beat a GK list without using a Fateweaver build, then you are proving how truely great a player you are!

Also add to this list, Tyranids as well.

As said, playing a spamy top teir list will win you games, but it doesn't mean you're any good... Hell, in 7th edition Fantasy I could give a 6yo a Daemon army and watch them curbstomp all-comers. It doesn't mean the kid is suddenly a fething genius, only that I gave him a stupidly OTT & broken army that plays on auto-pilot!

Ill put it this way; I dont mind being beat by a person with a well planned and played army. I wont even consider playing against a person who uses a well known "kill all" army/list.

People who use killer lists/armies are the same kind who buy high level WoW characters (or similar in other games) then hang around spawn areas to kill low level players.

No. You play to optimize your list, other people play for the sake of theme or hobby. 1. They don't HAVE to play you 2. The goal to playing each other is to see which army/commander is better.

Now if you beat your friend ALL the time and you guys are not having fun anymore, I'd recommend just coming up with a themed list to play against his. It doesn't have to suck, but it can be a hobby project. On a side note too, I knew a kid who played "themed lists" competitively and I took my optimized deathwing to the LGS and kicked his teeth in. He almost threw the board in the air and would constantly talk gak behind my back all because he couldn't beat my list I spent HOURS working on to make exactly how I wanted it. If that's the people you're worried about, then they can fug off.

Thats what is wrong with the game today. ULTRA Competitive players. At least from my POV as a recreational gamer.


In reality it is perhaps best for both sets of players to introduce themselves as one or the other....


"Hi, Im John. My army is desgined to suck all the fun out of your life and make you think you just wasted your life"

Or

"Hi, Im John. My army is based on having Fun. I dont care if my Eldar cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag, I still love them all the same"


And that in essence will solve all the issues...

Milisim wrote:Thats what is wrong with the game today. ULTRA Competitive players. At least from my POV as a recreational gamer.


In reality it is perhaps best for both sets of players to introduce themselves as one or the other....


"Hi, Im John. My army is desgined to suck all the fun out of your life and make you think you just wasted your life"

Or

"Hi, Im John. My army is based on having Fun. I dont care if my Eldar cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag, I still love them all the same"


And that in essence will solve all the issues...

Hey, I also play Eldar and I think that your premise that competitive play ruins the game is plainly wrong and very arrogant, I think it's more fair to say:


"Hi, Im John. My army is based on having fun, as I understand it, it's designed to be very competitive because exciting, competitive games is what I like about this hobby"

Or

Hi, Im John. My army is based on having Fun as I understand it, playing a relaxed "beer & pretzels" game"

You can't rule how different people have fun playing their game, and YOUR way of having fun is no "better" than that of competitive gamers.

spacewolved wrote:So I tend to play teir 1 army lists. I play Wolfstar lists and Drago Wing as of right now. However heres my question, I am a terrible player so I try to play the best army to make up for my lack of skill. Does this make me a A$$%@&*?

Noi, only being an A$$%@&*? makes you an A$$%@&*?

Seriously, though, you have the right to play the list you want and people have the right to choose if they want to take them on.

I just said my perspective as a recreational gamer.


MY way of thinking is my own.

I am allowed to believe my opinion is the right one.

I 100% CAN rule on what my definition of fun is. (that is what makes it MY DEFINITION)

Opinions are like Arseholes.... Everyone has one.

A list doesn't make a player, it helps, but if you don't know where the units are for them to be in thier prime, the list won't make a diffrence.

And calling other people names or saying their army is designed to suck the fun out of the game is at least on the road to being one. More likely it's designed to be fun for them, and people who enjoy playing the same style they like.

----------

Anyway, on topic, no, an army alone doesn't make you a jerk. Using certain armies in the wrong context can be jerky, if you're aware that it's the wrong context. And if you're fielding certain combos or lists which are known or thought to be difficult or annoying to play against, it can prejudice people against you and make them think you're un-fun.

Everyone that gets upset at players that use "OP" lists, needs to redirect their anger towards Games Workshop instead of the players that like lists that can win lots of games.

Being a jerk is far more dependent on how polite and friendly you are than the list you bring provided that the list is legal (though if you're a fairly new player it would be a bit excusable as a mistake, just be sure to come up with a fair solution when it is realized.) Also, I would say there is nothing wrong with netlists provided you and your opponent enjoy the game. To me as a casual gamer the fun lies in the conversation just as much as the game itself so that's what I'm basing my opinions above on.

You can just as easily be a jerk with a 'soft' army list.

Lists have nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned.

chromedog wrote:I play GK myself, but both the rules for Drago and his fluff make me want to toss my cookies. And the model didn't help.

I love Draigo's model :( The helmeted version, anyway.

The fact that such "overpowered" lists even exist just goes to show how poorly balanced GW codices are, though a quick glance at the Daemon codex and the Warp Quake entry removes any doubt.

On topic, no. No you aren't being a toaster if you use a "tier one" list.

this argument confuses me every time in every way it comes up. if you play a "themed list" and are surprised or annoyed when you are beat by a list that is designed to win (remember when 2 people face off in a game the goal is to win fun is only had as a result of playing the game not the outcome) then you clearly are not thinking properly. put it this way would you go to a race with a minivan and tell all the racecar drivers they are driving OP cars? and yes it is the same thing its a race much where someone has to win much liek someone has to win in 40k (usualy) difference is who actually wants to win. you can play a themed list all day long and lose all day long and still enjoy it but when you start crying about "netlist" and "OP codex" and other similar ridiculous things you look like an idiot for racing a minivan. sorry.

i play 40k because i enjoy the thought required to win a game i also enjoy the fluff and the modeling/painting but when i want to win i dont play 6 penal legion squads and wonder why they dont do much against termies. on that note i dont make an effort to make the game unenjoyable in anycase im a nice guy and prety laid back if you cant have fun with the models you bring its your fault imo


just my thoughts.

overall if you want to win bring a list capable of doing so if you want to play afluff list do so and look for afluff partner or dont start crying when you lose.

@OP.
Yes. it does.

Mad4Minis wrote:People who use killer lists/armies are the same kind who buy high level WoW characters (or similar in other games) then hang around spawn areas to kill low level players.

...actually, no...it's not really anything like that at all, in fact. A better comparison for your example would be players who use top-tier lists specifically against people new to the game with battleforce armies to get easy wins. If someone with a high-level WoW character only PvPs with other high-level characters in PvP areas then I'd say they're playing the game the way they're supposed to be. Likewise with 40k, if you're playing a top-tier army against other top-tier armies then you're not doing anything wrong.

jgehunter wrote:You can't rule how different people have fun playing their game, and YOUR way of having fun is no "better" than that of competitive gamers.

This. Get off your high horse already and just play the fething game the way you want to play it, and leave us to ours.

victor.IG wrote:put it this way would you go to a race with a minivan and tell all the racecar drivers they are driving OP cars?

You know, I've asked similar questions before and never received an acceptable answer. People always just dismiss it with "Oh well you can't compare 40k to a real, recognized sport so shut up.", and I don't really see the difference myself. Football can be played at home or in a stadium with a crowd of hundreds watching and thousands more watching on television, you can race other people in your own cars on a track or do it at the professional level with sponsorships and everything, and video games have even become something of a sport with a big competitive scene and games being streamed online, but for some reason 40k is sacred and you can't play it with a competitive mindset at all or you're morally corrupt. lol

Blacksails wrote:You can just as easily be a jerk with a 'soft' army list.

Lists have nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned.

This...1000x this...

This all depends really.

If you want to get better at the game and have a much better tactical advantage, drop the armies and run something far less forgiving and tactical that really does need a good use of synergy.
This will help you get the hang of things much faster than throwing power units at everything.

At the end of the day, even with the best list, a better general will win simply through knowledge of the game.




However, if your just playing casual friendly games, there isnt anything wrong with it, but it might piss your friends off quickly

spacewolved wrote:So I tend to play teir 1 army lists. I play Wolfstar lists and Drago Wing as of right now. However heres my question, I am a terrible player so I try to play the best army to make up for my lack of skill. Does this make me a A$$%@&*?

I think it depends on venue. Are you playing the FLGS vs unknown players then I don't see taking the army as much of an issue.

If you are doing this in your friends basement, then I think, at a minimum its inconsiderate.

kronk wrote:
What makes you a A$$%@&* is using terms like "wolfstar." .

Why is that exactly? It gets the point across, it's descriptive, and it's concise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:Nah. Just stop using those terms. See also: Failcost, Failaddon, and leaf blower.

Ah. nevermind my previous post. We have a moral crusader on our hands. I'd like to point out that kronk is seemingly a fan of Will Farrell, the gentleman who brought us a plethora of shining examples of maturity and high-brow intellectualism. For example: Steve Butabi, Mustafa, Frank Ricard, Buddy, Ron Burgundy, Ricky Bobby, Chazz Michael Michaels, Jackie Moon, Dr. Rick Marshall, Jacobim Mugatu, etc. It appears to me that kronk doesn't truly cherish maturity, insomuch as he adores the attention he receives for being a troll.

Personally I know I am not too good at playing 40k yet. But I tend to go in the opposite direction than you. I tend to try and find a "lower tier" army so that if I start holding my own with those armies, I know that I can grab a "better" army and do very well with them! I usually play Tau and can do ok with them. I learn more and more about delaying tactics and speed bumping. Also I need to rely on terrain more and the value of my units vs. enemy units. I took what I learned from several games and picked up a CSM Nurgle army. I have done even better with them because of learning these things. But essentially everyone learns their own way, so do what helps actually make you a better player whether that's playing really competitive armies and lists or "casual" armies and lists.

Yes if you are playing for fun, no if it is a tournament. Or preparing for a tournament.

Yes.
You are a terrible person and must sell all your armies and buy Tau until you are a better player.

What's "wolfstar?"

Ravenous D wrote:

kronk wrote:Calling someone that doesn't want to play "tournament" lists all of the time a bunny deosn't make you TFG, neccessarily, but it's pretty darn close. You realize that, right?

Its just easier then writing the pc version of "less experienced person that enjoys laid back games that i'll have to go easy on/tone down my army to avoid them being grumpy". Pretty much no matter how it is said it implies "less good then" even saying 'non-tournament' or 'casual' gamers sounds patronizing.

How about 'experienced player who has been playing so long he knows EXACTLY how the game works but has reached the level of experience where 'winning at toy soldiers' is childish and irrelevant and quite likes playing with the the armies he just likes the look of'

I agree, it doesn't exactly trip off the tongue....

I really don't care what army or list you play. I will judge you by your conduct during a game, nothing more and nothing less.

Iranna.

I dont care about your list, as people befor me said being an &%$@ makes you an &%$@.
If people cannot handle your lists then thats their problem, 40k is not that well balanced and it was not really designed for competative play.

No, but when your codex becomes the "old" codex of this next coming Generation realize that the crutch you believe you need will be gone. If during all those games you played when your Codex was easy you learned nothing about how to TRULY play the game, than you probably won't like the hobby. Or you can go out and buy the newest best army, which would probably make you an actual A$$%@&* but I'd still play you. Just be a bit about the fact that you aren't willing to learn the game and are willing to take shortcuts.

Also, it depends on your environment. If you are playing with friends who are obviously playing the fluff lists or are always trying out new stuff....it may be better to get the clue. I've played with people who always bring the cookie cutter lists no matter what game, and though they are easy to counter it's boring HAVING to counter them. I would rather bring fun units and know they are doing the same for their own tastes.

Also, any GK player is required to bring beer...for everyone...all the beer.

spacewolved wrote:So I tend to play teir 1 army lists. I play Wolfstar lists and Drago Wing as of right now. However heres my question, I am a terrible player so I try to play the best army to make up for my lack of skill. Does this make me a A$$%@&*?

In the end it is your time and your money so play what you like.

That being said i think the game has far more to offer than powergaming netdecked armies/uber-competative tourney-style play.

The game can also be very enjoyable as a vehicle for story-based/scenario play, fluff based campaigns, historical refights, etc., etc.

I find that ultra-competative play sucks th life out of the game and seting, but to each his own...