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.

90% of my games are campaign stuff, with custom units and heroes and missions and such. I play a bit of casual and tend to do fairly well actually, despite having like 0 skill at the game and an ancient codex. Most I've ever done was semi-comp and even that was too much for me to be bothered with.

I might dip my toes in tourneyhammer again when Orks 2014 hits though

 Swastakowey wrote:
We have found other game systems like Flames of War are much better for competative play as they are still fun but casual and you dont look like a complete jerk for playing to win haha. 40K should be cinematic and story based.

Hey man, it's hard not to notice that you play Japan in FoW. Does that mean that there is... *gasp* an early-war community in NZ?

I tried out FoW a while back with Open Fire Americans, and didn't like the whole every war is late war thing that seems to be happening around Auckland, so I dropped it (plus infantry+arty lists are boring as hell to play with or against) Seconding the statement that FoW >>> 40k as a tournament game though.

I feel that I like to play to a theme and for awesome and rediculous moments more than winning, though I won't have a good time if my army gets roflstomped time and again... then again, I play 1k sons... but I'll say this much, it puts a decent fight up against plasma-spam wolves

I'm all about fun. ROFLstomping my opponent with waves of cheese isn't fun. I like the stories I can create with these battles, and If something contradicts the fluff I probably won't use it. Sure, Land speeder squadrons with two Multi-Melta's each along with Vulkan He'Stan are stupid powerful, but Nocturne's crazy shifting gravity prevents Land Speeders from being used for the most part, same with aircraft. So, I like to just have fun.

I mostly play casual, not competitive (although i came second in Nagoyahammer last year)
I usually take vanilla squads because specialist squads always backfire on me, so i have no funny stuff in my list, and it usually works out.

Sadly from my experience the considerable majority of players up here, for whatever system, are all about their by the rulebook missions and not at all fluffy lists. I'm hoping to be corrected on that front sooner or later, but thats what I've seen sofar.

Whenever I meet someone on here from out of Auckland its the same thing - "competitive? whats that? we play fluffy/campaign/apocalypse/casual XYZ down here". Feels bad man.

The FoW crowd at least goes out of its way to make it Axis vs Allies as much as possible. The one tournament I went to themed it as Normandy with hedgerow maps and stuff, but really there wasn't that much "roleplay" to it. If there was I might still have those Americans.

Why do the options have to be mutually exclusive?

I'll go out and compete in tournaments, then turn around and play a narrative game the next day. It's all 40k and it's all fun.

Don't put yourself in a box.

Well, I stand in the middle of the infamous "Winning once in a while would taste sweet" versus "These models fit to my fluff perfectly!" -axis.

My priorities lie... in between. Sometimes a fluffy player needs to have a victory by bringing some stronger or "optimal" units to the table (I'm looking at you, AA-Shield Eternal-powerfist-Bike-Cap'n .... and Lysander with Hammernators).

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Why do the options have to be mutually exclusive?

I'll go out and compete in tournaments, then turn around and play a narrative game the next day. It's all 40k and it's all fun.

Don't put yourself in a box.

^ I'm with this guy.

I'm sad there isn't a, "I try to have fun, but it just isn't there, kind of like that spark that when out of my marriage and 40k does nothing but drink and hit me when the roast is cold." option. Because That's how I feel when I play 40k, and it's my attitude whenever someone wishes to get a game in. BUT I, like an Alzheimer's patient forget of the horrible stompings I've received in 6th edition and go, "yeah sure, I'll play." only to be reminded of why I've come to dislike this game, a game that showed me tabletop wargaming.

Since there isn't that option, I'll simply put it this way: My approach to gaming (because 40k isn't my only game anymore) is this: "I play to win at a casual level, and use units that work well in my local meta" when I'm hanging around the shop on Friday nights, at the end of the night if I lost and still had fun it's a good night. When I'm at a tournament though, it's this: "I play to win at a competitve level but I don't always use the most optimised units". To put it in perspective, I ran Nurgle Chaos Space Marines because that is all that I as a player (good or bad) could run and survive to see past turn 3, it evened the playing field for me as a player. Switch to Warmachine and Hordes where I could run a sub-optimized Troll list based on what I had, and still would do okay in games.

I like to make a list with some sort of theme whenever I can. However, at the same time I try to optimize the list as well as I can and still keep the theme.

My gaming group is a little wierd, most of the games we play are in an ongoing campaign environment, where both sides have different objectives, and both sides have different troop restrictions. Games like that tend to be more entertaining because the story is more important than the outcome, and it allows you to try out different combinations of units.

That said, for a pick up game, no holds barred, no mercy, take the best i can limited only by my collection. don't expect me to go easy on you, i want to win, i want to smash your pathetic army into the ground. i expect no less from my opponent

It is kind of funny, because the vacuum logic of some of the tactical threads would make you think that this is a forum for WAAC. Though WAAC players may feel themselves above a petty poll.

Last week I fielded 8 plague drones and had a close victory. All of my drones died, but I still had a damned good time.

We play 40k by-the-book, mostly, as small-ish games every week.
But, to mix things up, lots of us hardly ever use the same list. Make it from scratch, mix in new units, change the squad sizes, etc. Even against the same person, the game will have changed from the week before.

I try to optemize my lists based on miniatures / themes I like and want to employ though for even casual list level optemization it often means I can't do this until 2000+pt games so for lesser games I have alternating optermized lists.

 Paradigm wrote:
As the title says, I'm curious to see what the prevailing attitude to the game on this forum is.

I see a lot of people in the on the forum saying that the best units are the only ones that should be used, and a lot that don't share my opinion that just because a unit isn't 'the best', that does not mean it's useless.

My own opinion on the matter is that, while I play to win, that is more during the game than in army selection. I'll build an army I like the look and feel of, and then use that to win, rather than building an army for superiority from the outset. I also do not feel the need to take units seen to be 'the best' or to leave out units that are seen to be less than optimal. My mindset when looking at a codex is more about trying to find a use for every unit rather than trying to work out what is the most competitive choice in each slot.

Let the discussion begin.

I am the same way. I want to play an interesting army and not an optimized list that is the same every time and is the same as most every other version of that given army. That is just totally boring to me. Either way I play to win with the army I have. I don't just say, "Oh its a fluffy army I don't need to try"...that is kind of pointless. I really enjoy getting wins against people who are convinced half the units in my army are "useless". There is usually some excuse involved from the other side of the table too. Either they rolled poorly or I rolled too well and it never is that the "useless" units did the jobs I expected of them as part of my battle plan so my plan suceeded. Hard to break those solid beliefs that other players have, especially when they have never bothered to use the unit themselves because they just *know* it is useless to do so...

My primary goal from all aspects of the hobby. I want to convert a model in small or big ways because it is fun. I want to play games because it is fun to do so. Too many people pile on requirements for the game to be considered fun: they have to roll well, they have to win or be winning, their opponent's army needs to be a certain way. All of those requirements lead to not having fun most of the time. How often do you roll well in games? Usually it is a stand out game surrounded by a dozen where the dice were barely average fo you. How many people win *every* game? Not many at all. I've not lost a game with my chaos marines in years of playing, but I get plenty of loss karma handed down on me when I play alternate armies so it isn't like I am an unbeaten player. If any loss makes you unhappy you have fun in any game where you are not decidedly in control and heading towards victory. Finally exactly how much control do you really have over your opponent and their army? None. So putting expectations and limits on your opponent's force will usually upset you. Painting is a biggie, but then there is the "If they have more than unit X that is going to tick me off" crowd as well. With all those requirements you *might* have a fun game every blue moon or so. If you just focus on having fun then that is what you'll get...bring negativity to the table and that is what you will get as well.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
We have found other game systems like Flames of War are much better for competative play as they are still fun but casual and you dont look like a complete jerk for playing to win haha. 40K should be cinematic and story based.

Flames of war is just a better written game in its current incarnation. There is also some semblance of balance in the game as well, though in LW some of the balance is more theater oriented because armor threats on the eastern front were significantly tougher than on the western front. Either way the rules don't get in the way of the game as much. 40k play would be better when players on opposite sides of the competitive scale faced each other if there was even the slightest bit of effort put into truly balancing the point costs of units. Everyone claims that "balance" equates to boring and everything exactly the same, but it doesn't. That would be symmetry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
It is kind of funny, because the vacuum logic of some of the tactical threads would make you think that this is a forum for WAAC. Though WAAC players may feel themselves above a petty poll.

Last week I fielded 8 plague drones and had a close victory. All of my drones died, but I still had a damned good time.

I love the plague drones and really love the FW models for the blight drones. When I play nurgle I always include my blight drones, and both tend to die within the first 2 turns without much affect on the battle, but they are just such great models I always want to include them. Haven't used them since they became flyers so they might actually have slightly better survivability in some instances. Have to see. My nurgle plague ogryns are similar, though do serve a purpose. The models are so ugly and creepy that everyone always targets a ton of fire on them, but with FnP and multiple wounds they soak a lot of fire before dying. Sadly they have never done anything but be a fire target/sink in any game I've used them. Not sure I want them to ever get in contact, though, and let everyone see how unimpressive they are as actual combatants.

Skriker

I play to win. I don't use net lists or "overpowered" armies, and I'm not on the competitive circuit, but I don't shy from using Dominions or Deathmarks.

Well I picked the last one.
I like to play the models I like, even if they aren't the best as long as I can have fun playing them! I generally don't win when trying out new builds but I do build some good lists that can handle their own.
My main goal is for me to have fun and the other player to have fun too aka I'm not gunna bring 2 riptides and a bunch of broadsides lol

For me it's more about fun, I love the fluff and feel of 40k, and I play armies and units that I like, and don't compete in massive tournaments. When I do play in a local game store weekend tournament, I'll bring whatever army I think I can with, but I don't go out of my way to buy new units or change my entire collection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is also cheap and easy choices to make as I only have 2 armies.

I tend to play with fluffy units, but with some competetive units. ( i mostly play against necrons, and as a guard player..)