A small observation about gaming these days.

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.

**Peter Wiggin**

Hello guys, I've been in and out of the hobby for 16 years. It just seems like the majority of folks say "X is not as good as Y because it costs C and doesn't have A". Am I missing something here? I'm not a master player by any means, and frankly enjoy the modeling/painting more than anything else so I'm willing to concede that I maybe I don't "get it". Is it appropriate to compare units to each other, let alone base your modeling and hobby choices on it?

I understand the concept of probability being a determiner in the games, but luck doesn't win anything. It will however make you lose on occasion.

**purplefood**

Competetive players will make choices based on whether the unit is good or can help their army etc
Fluff players will take a unit because it looks awesome or it's fluff is awesome etc
Other players might take a unit because no one else does or they like it etc
In the end it depends what you want out of your hobby.

**Tazok**

I'm a painter first, but sure there's value in comparing how effective different units are. If you don't want to go that route, that's fine, but there's no harm in that sort of discussion.

**Peter Wiggin**

Are these choices based on any kind of mathematically proven probability, or is it just a case of "this works for me" and internet army lists?

I'm curious because I haven't actually played a game since 2nd ed. I have a copy of the 40k big book and Codex CSM (mostly for inspiration), and reading online it seems like the "best" dex's are the most recent ones. Am I just reading too many negative nancy threads?

**Tazok**

Depends on the poster. Most commonly I think it's a combination of probability, experience and the meta game (what armies and army composition are popular in a given area).

**purplefood**

I personally love anything that is unpredictable... adds so much more un if you're in danger of vaporising half your army with the wrong dice roll.

**MechaEmperor7000**

Some lists have enough customizability to go for anything. Fluff people tends to complain about the serious lack their "fluff" armies have (namely Khorne Daemons and Thousand Sons). Competitive people all boil it down to Mathhammer, however that effectively means for older dexes there is exactly one type of build that is effective and all others are discarded.

**Th3ee Legged Dog**

I try to build tactically sound fluff armies. It's hard but fun and I dont win nearly enough games to consider it a success but it is fun to do.

**MechaEmperor7000**

well if you have fun then you have succeeded no?

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

I build my lists according to what units go well together, as opposed to what units are good on their own. I find this works well for me. It certainly gives me more options to put in my lists.

**Mr Nobody**

The grass is always greener on the other side, the same works with armies and model rules.

**mrblacksunshine_1978**

I have to say I'm guilty as they come. I buy armies so that I can try to find a way to break the codex,so that i can win tournament.

**juraigamer**

There are different types of players, and these different types choose how they make their armies based on different variables. While one player may choose a unit because they think it's cool, another will choose it possibly because it's incredibly effective.

However, making an army list to win, and only to win with no regard to how the army meshes together or whatever isn't something I want to promote. You should play to play, winning may be the end goal but should you sacrifice your own creativity simply to say "I win"?

**Jaon**

This post sums up 21st century gaming, both table top and video games.

pre-21st-century, games were played for fun. there were few hackers, and games like unreal tournament and quake and doom were all the rage: fast paced unrealistic run and gun. Now its about winning.

The true spirit is gone.

**AspireToGlory**

Jaon wrote:This post sums up 21st century gaming, both table top and video games.

pre-21st-century, games were played for fun. there were few hackers, and games like unreal tournament and quake and doom were all the rage: fast paced unrealistic run and gun. Now its about winning.

The true spirit is gone.

Who decided what the true spirit was?

I play warhammer and video games to have fun.

I have the most fun when I win.

Ergo, I play to win, because that makes it the most fun.

It really depends on what you want out of it. My favorite part of 40k is the tactical aspect, actually playing the game on the tabletop. For myself, it's a more complicated version of chess with way cooler models.

**Striker4**

I wouldn't say the spirit is gone so much as drowned out by all the people who just want to win, and therefore cheat or take gaming to a level that it's not meant for.

My friends and I actually try to take everything into consideration. We want a good competitive army, but we also want our armies to be pretty fluffy. We also only like models that look cool, and often play around to make it look like we want it to. I guess you could say we like to cover all our bases.

I think between everyone it's been summed up for the OP;

Mostly every way that someone can base their decisions off of in this, and any other, game has been done and will be done again and again and again.

**Brother SRM**

I blame the Internet. Not everyone who plays 40k or what have you posts on forums like these, and those who do are often the ones a bit more "hardcore" about it. Even more casual folks who read forums still pick up on a lot of it, but we don't all follow Internet advice blindly. Just the vocal minority if you ask me.