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.

[deleted]

Eh, My causal list has 20 mob bikers.

Only joking. There is a clear difference between WAAC and FG.

1. does he have 5 or more transports?
2. Does he have a WAAC List?

If you answered yes to 2, he has a WAAC List.

List building is part of the game. Why not step up to the challenge instead of complaining about it?

Deuce11 wrote:I play a fella whom I have never beaten with his current BA army and I have only beaten once overall in all the years we've been involved in this hobby. I believe his list is simply a trump card to my own and unless he is rolling horribly and I am on a vegas worthy streak of good fortune, it is impossible for me to beat him.

If you've only beaten him once with any army he's played maybe it's the player and not the list? Why not try swapping armies with him?
Regardless, instead of deciding that you can't beat him, either improve your list or improve your skills or both.

The key is "friendly".

Friends discuss.
If you are playing with the same folks, talk it over with them.

I habitually try for harder, better lists and play. When I play friends I talk about list potentials and game styles prior to creating lists, or using ones I have.

When I go to play pick-up games I try to bring a mix of point values and competativeness. AND talk to the person I am playing a bit.

Things like "I have a tourney coming and would like to practice a list I made up" or "I have a custom Hive Fleet based around the battle for Ultramar" go a long way.

There are some lists that can be made unbelievably hard to beat with certain armies--I doubt any are actually impossible, but many can fee like it.

If it is really friendly, talk about it. Is it hard because your collection does not contain the counter? Or because your codex does not? If it is the former, proxy/counts-as a few games with it and see if you want to buy it--or if it makes him change his list.
If it is the latter, talk about what HE thinks would work against it and play that
If nothing seems to work, ask him to stop using it--at least for some games.

I think it is the mentality of the player not his list that makes the difference between tournament causal play styles.

I like to put my lists up so people can point out if im doing something stupid. Like giving my char a 6++ and regeneration(+6) or if I have got a support unit kitted out like a hard hitter -something that is obviously not how it should be played.

But what happens if your friend builds a fun list and through casual play finds that he has actually made a real good list? Armys may just be generally hard to beat with your army no matter the lists to.

But for casual play I would think only using the one list constantly would get boring and annoying.

Almost all of my local circle play competitively. I'll really only consider taking "silly" or "single-tactic spam" lists against a couple of my opponents, but that's cause they don't have very much practice (due to other responsibilities) and I don't like stomping them every game (since I know how I feel when that happens to me).

I wouldn't say we're WAAC, but we certainly don't field a list unless we think it has a good chance of winning (or if we want to test the effectiveness of a certain unit or tactic).

EDIT: Also, we're not really tourney-good (tactically speaking), so it's not that big of a deal.

My buddies are humoring me and playing 750-point games until 1) I build my new Eldar army bigger and 2) I get a firmer grasp on the rules. Friendly games means not going over the top ith things you know the other player cannot reasonably counter. Dropping a Land Raider into a 750-point game is definitely not friendly. A Rhino or a Dread is fine, since a back shot from a Warp Spider could pop either. When we move up to 1250 points, it will be more of an anything-goes environment, because we will all have room in our lists to bring the fun toys (and I can feel reasonably secure that I understand the game well enough to deal with the larger game.)

great responses

Casual gaming is playing a calm fun environment where you don't have to be under high pressure and scrutinised horribly for making a bad choice or losing.

Sure at then end you can have a "You suck! In your face moment" but not a serious one.

I have a friend I deliberately keep out of the hobby. That sounds mean but put it this way. He dies in halo or COD then it is not the guy is good or lucky or even average, it is "F*cking lag!/C*nt!/Cheating B*stard!/Throw in swear here" and when it happens more then once he becomes completely unsocial, temperamental and ALWAYS hits something (even if playing a friend).

If you play a game against a person like that then there is no way you will be having a 'casual' game no matter what your list is. Yet you could be the best player in the world with the best list in the world and during the game be having a convo, slice of pizza and maybe throwing some tips for your opponent. I would still count that as casual, no matter how badly I got beaten.

I would say I constantly strive to make my army more competitive, but that doesn't mean I'm an ass when I play. If I'm in a bad situation, I'm not going to pull out a rule book and seach for a loophole for a half hour.

If i get beat so what? It just means I have to tweak my list, buy better dice (DAMNED DIRTY DICE!) or pay more attention to game next time.

The game will always start and end with a handshake, and if they beat me handily a slap on the back for the victor and maybe a beer.

Back then I played regularly, one of my friends and I would play one or two days a week, and get in about 5 games each day (3rd/4th edition 1500pts games were fast...). All I ever used was my Salamanders, which I built on my student budget. It wasn't tailored to be anything at all - I just bought units I wanted and threw them in.

He had a few armies. Black Templars, Tau, Imperial Fists, Night Lords... And he constantly tried different things. Each army was built to play a certain way. Like his Night Lords. Everything in the army either moved 12", infiltrated or deep striked. However, nothing was really made to be 'competitive'.

Playing those games were the most fun I had playing this hobby. Funnily enough, I won about 75% of the games with my unorganized Salamanders list, but it was really fun adapting to new armies that all played differently. He probably got sick of my Salamanders after a while though.

Another friend plays to win. His Space Marine list is usually min maxed to get as many special weapons in, terminator squads, vehicles. He's also someone who will bicker over the smallest rule if it goes against him in any way. Playing against him is the most unfun time I've ever spent playing the hobby.

I definitely fall into the camp of someone who doesn't run 'competitive' army lists, and hates playing against them.

Deuce11 wrote:The reason I feel there is a tinge of unfairness is that he rarely plays anyone other than me due to his current living situation. So since he only play me, his friend, and his list is an utter trump card to my own, is it not WAAC that he wouldn't switch something up in order to make the games closer?

Switch armies and play a few games. If he still stomps you then you know it's not the list.

First off there is no such thing as a WAAC list.

There are 2 kinds of lists Competitive and non-competitive. Personally The gaming group i now play with plays mostly competitive lists. whereas the previous group played non-competitive armies.

Its really all about the community you play with. Personally I find MUCH more enjoyment in 40k when both myself and my opponent have competitive lists and play them well. The game is more fun for me that way, games get close and very intense.

Casual games for me are about laughing and having fun while playing. Which I only seem to do with players of my skill level.

I think deciding whether or not to take a competetive list should be reactionary. If you fluff it against an opponent who is taking things seriously, you will most likely get stomped. Likewise, if you spam whatever speciality your list has against a friendly player you are going to crush them, and you should feel terrible about it. Always play tit-for-tat.

Deuce11 wrote:Am I just being a soar, frequent, loser for thinking maybe his list is a little OTT for casual play?

Whether his list is bad for friendly games has less to do with how much he's winning, and everything to do with whether it's fun to play against.

There are lists that are very powerful that people can also find a whole lot of fun to play against - even if they know they're probably going to lose. There are also lists that are boring and uncompetitive. The trick comes when you move into that group of lists that boring but very effective.

For instance I find mech guard to be a good game most every time I play against with my Orks. I lose quite often but I don't mind - it's always a good game. On the other hand I generally beat footslogging guard - probably at least two times out of three, but it's a boring game because his army is completely static until the very end, and all I do is run forward.

The boring lists aren't necessarily the same for everyone, it'll depend on your playstyle and your own army, but we all know the lists we personally find boring. When a guy insists on playing that list even when you and possibly other people find it dull, that's when you've got a guy who doesn't understand casual play.

So, are you still enjoying playing the guy? Would it be much more fun if you had more of a chance of winning?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:List building is part of the game. Why not step up to the challenge instead of complaining about it?

Yeah, a lot of people have this idea that the only reason someone might argue against building competitive lists is because they can't personally cope. It's a nonsense idea that needs to die.

The biggest reason to step back from building purely the strongest lists is for the sake of variety. There is a tremendous variety of possible lists, a huge number of possible builds that can all play quite differently. The strongest lists, the most likely to win are only a subset of that range. To have more variety in our games, it's good to pull back from the most competitive level of play.

The second reason is that by the nature of the game, the most powerful lists will limit their exposure to one type of weapon. They will tend to be entirely light or heavy armour, or entirely light infantry, or entirely MEQ or whatever. This has very real tactical benefits, because the enemy is not able to optimise his fire by focusing on the best target for each weapon - he is presented with only AV12 (for example) and wastes very high powered weapons on weak armour, and loses the use of all weapons that can't penetrate AV12. Unfortunately, this tends to produce a rock/paper/scissors environment, you either match up well against that army type or you don't, so many games are decided before deployment. Fun lists discourage that level of specialisation.

I agree that the biggest thing you can do is switch armies for a few games.

Switching armies helps put perspective on the enemies forces, and in your case may illustrate a weakness in the BA list for you to later exploit. Usually, if you are helming the BA your friend usually runs, you start to think along the lines 'I hope he doesnt target my BA rhinos now before my assault squad gets into combat' or 'I hope those oblits dont shoot plasma cannons at my infantry now that my rhino exploded.' These thoughts can be critical to becoming a better general.

All that said, there is a solid wall that some players can not breach. This is usually due to financial constraints, but can often be linked to army of choice. For example, if you only have exactly enough chaos to play 2k points, then your options for building a 2k list are limited to you bringing everything you own. Versus an opponent with 10k of chaos who is able to bring an almost limitless amount of different lists to a 2k event, the person with a larger collection will often have a substansial advantage to someone who can just barely play. This is even more common in many magic the gathering games, where you can literally buy power.

In a similiar vein, if the only army you want to play is a mono Grey Knight list, the age of the army book in question plus your desire to only play with a half dozen kinds of units out of said outdated book can hamper gameplay. Newer books, even when not using an optimized list, can crush some older books.

kirsanth wrote:The key is "friendly".

Friends discuss.
If you are playing with the same folks, talk it over with them.

I habitually try for harder, better lists and play. When I play friends I talk about list potentials and game styles prior to creating lists, or using ones I have.

When I go to play pick-up games I try to bring a mix of point values and competativeness. AND talk to the person I am playing a bit.

Things like "I have a tourney coming and would like to practice a list I made up" or "I have a custom Hive Fleet based around the battle for Ultramar" go a long way.

There are some lists that can be made unbelievably hard to beat with certain armies--I doubt any are actually impossible, but many can fee like it.

If it is really friendly, talk about it. Is it hard because your collection does not contain the counter? Or because your codex does not? If it is the former, proxy/counts-as a few games with it and see if you want to buy it--or if it makes him change his list.
If it is the latter, talk about what HE thinks would work against it and play that
If nothing seems to work, ask him to stop using it--at least for some games.

1500 Orks vs 1500 SoB. He runs 150-200 models and pulls wounds from the spot where the next squad can use it's templates.

Amaya wrote:1500 Orks vs 1500 SoB. He runs 150-200 models and pulls wounds from the spot where the next squad can use it's templates.

Are you the sister player? Are you complaining that he is playing the game in such a way to make it harder for you to win? Does he complain when you shoot at his models, or put your models in cover so they are harder to hurt?

Amaya wrote:1500 Orks vs 1500 SoB. He runs 150-200 models and pulls wounds from the spot where the next squad can use it's templates.

I would describe that as skilled play. You need to find ways of countering it. For example, tank shock the unit (avoiding the power klaw) so that you end up in the middle of them. All the guys that were under the rhino are now bunched tightly together (they have to be moved the minimum possible remember). You can now flame the hell out of them. He'll take casualties from the bunched up models (to not do so would be extremely dangerous) so the next squad still has plenty of targets.

When I'm playing a friendly game, first of all I allow some latitude regarding the rules. For example, there was an instance where my opponent attempted to hide a Vindicator behind blocking terrain so that my Railguns couldn't see his side armor facing - I'd have to shoot at his front armor, even though I was in his side arc. However, I could see about half a centimeter of his side facing, and claimed LOS. Were I playing a friendly game, I'd shoot at front armor, simply because his intent was obviously to hide his side armor facing - I'd fudge LOS a bit to give him the benefit of the doubt. In a competitive setting, I'd claim LOS on that tiny sliver of hull every time.

The second thing I'll do in a friendly game is play around with my lists, and maybe use units that, while not particularly competitive, are just plain fun to play. Sometimes I'll play around with Warbikers, or I'll proxy my Battlesuit Commander as Farsight. So I essentially have two lists for every army. My "fun" list, which I only play in friendly games, and my "competitive" list, which I pull out for tournaments and the like.

Well, I would say I have more fun playing at the LFGS. But I love this game regardless of who I play.

Deuce11 wrote:Well, I would say I have more fun playing strangers at the LFGS. I literally get headaches and low blood sugar playing my friend, haha. But I love this game regardless of who I play.

When playing a stranger there is more often an understanding of why you are there. Rule disagreements are calmer, bad dice rolls are taken more lightly, and generally the game goes much faster. The game is faster because the Win just isn't AS important and each and every movement phase isn't approached like a chess game.

Wow, that is not my experience at all. Games against my mates are generally very mellow, I guess we've played each other for so long now there's not really anything to be proved from one more win for him or for me. Interesting.

Anyway best thing you can do is talk to your friend about it. If he's a good mate he'll want your game to improve, and if he likes wargaming and not just the ego boost from winning then he'll want a tougher challenge. Whether that means helping you improve your game or just toning down his army to produce a closer challenge is something you guys will have to figure out for yourselves.

SaintHazard wrote:When I'm playing a friendly game, first of all I allow some latitude regarding the rules. For example, there was an instance where my opponent attempted to hide a Vindicator behind blocking terrain so that my Railguns couldn't see his side armor facing - I'd have to shoot at his front armor, even though I was in his side arc. However, I could see about half a centimeter of his side facing, and claimed LOS. Were I playing a friendly game, I'd shoot at front armor, simply because his intent was obviously to hide his side armor facing - I'd fudge LOS a bit to give him the benefit of the doubt. In a competitive setting, I'd claim LOS on that tiny sliver of hull every time.

The second thing I'll do in a friendly game is play around with my lists, and maybe use units that, while not particularly competitive, are just plain fun to play. Sometimes I'll play around with Warbikers, or I'll proxy my Battlesuit Commander as Farsight. So I essentially have two lists for every army. My "fun" list, which I only play in friendly games, and my "competitive" list, which I pull out for tournaments and the like.

This. All bets are off in a competative game, but in a friendly game, there are really only two rules that must be followed to the exact letter in my gaming group: Play for fun, and Everybody gets one.

I play the best lists I can as often as I can for three reasons. One, I have only been playing for a year now so I try to practice as much as I can with a few lists and only focus on one army till I feel I have strong tactics with all of the units I use most often and know how to properly use them against the units that other armies field. The former doesn't take that many games to get a feel for but the latter takes tons of pick up games against as many different opponents as often and I need to use the same units so I get a feel for what other units are capable of without dice flukes affecting my judgment.

Two, I build my lists from the ground up with a theme. Its a pet peeve of mine when there is a bunch of different unit types in the same army. Other people can field whatever they want but for me ill build a list with an all mech theme all bike theme and future armies that I play will be built with a cohesive theme in mind. This means that units that cant fit with the theme of my mech armies or my bike army probably wont get a lot of table time since I try to field as many painted models as possible and haven't really gotten around to painting anything that I own that isnt in my main list.

Three, I'm not made of money and only own enough models to put together 2 different mech lists that only have minor differences and 1 bike list with at 2000 points with about 1000 points worth of models that I simply don't use that much. Maybe when I have been in the hobby for longer and own enough models to switch things around a whole bunch I'll be able to field "fun" lists. For the time being I build the most solid lists I could first and then buy models. This is because after first getting into the hobby I felt like I wasted a lot of money on really useless models. Other than my first few purchases I really haven't bought any models that I don't consider competitive as it cost me all the cash I could afford just to get the models I wanted for my themed lists. Also a minor annoyance, I have had several people walk by my table while playing and comment that its lame/boring/unfair that I take all tanks in my two main armies. If you don't like what I had to pay several hundred dollars for, build and paint over several months in my scant free time you can go right ahead and hand my a fully painted "fluffy" that YOU like and I'll play that instead.

Overall I win much more than I lose now, but when I first started I almost always lost. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with this in friendly games because of the reasons above and also because I feel my skill level has increased substantially by approaching the game in such a consistent manner which has a lot more bearing on me winning than my list. Furthermore I have fun playing almost every game I play and so do most of my opponents because its the way both of us act while playing not our list and not our tactics that cause the game to be fun.