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.

. I'd sooner try and improve upon my own force with each battle being a learning experience

But that would mean that you have enough money to spend on bad units or even bad unit set ups. And if that is true why not get a good army and spend the rest on random stuff from others.
On the other hand in places like I live, where w40k costs realy a lot more then it does in the US or UK, people just can't build multiple bad options and buy and play only with the best units.

 RunicFIN wrote:
They are all true, yet somehow these same individuals manage to resist, nitpick and disagree and in the end they do exactly what I just described. It´s like some have difficulty accepting that certain things just are true and that´s all there is to it. Just a shallow, transparent way to get an argument going without breaking the rules. And still people wonder how some ( me included ) feel it´s just best to be direct right off the bat, since this is what happens anyway. I believe 5 years has given me quite a decent picture of how things work.

Before you get too far jumping on the victimisation train... no one is arguing the points you outlined. It's all the other stuff in between that people are arguing. Some of the points people are arguing against EVIL are...

 EVIL INC wrote:
All the rest, rules, GW and so on are simply not part of this equation.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The actual rules are not part of the equation.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The thread is about hating any and all players who so much as say those words out of principle. I would like to at least give them the chance to show me they are a nice guy before making those sorts of assumptions.

This is largely what started the debate.

EVIL then went on to start accusing people of promoting hate without being able to quote any specific points to back it up.

 EVIL INC wrote:
By saying that it is the rules and not the player, you are essentially saying that you are buying into the hate all comepetive players thing for that reason.

He then went on to start accusing people of trying to get him to hate... again something they weren't actually doing...

 EVIL INC wrote:
...despite how many people in this thread tell me to hate them based on the words on the piece of paper in a book alone.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Throughout the entire thread, it is being suggested and put forth that we should hate all "competitive players" because the rules are broken.

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
it is eing suggested (well, many are agreeing with the hating of players who play to winand are validating that hate and trying to convince us to agree with them which amounts to trying to get us to hate those players) purely because ofthe rules written in the book.

No. No it's not. Please stop making things up.

These statements are just false.

Then went on to take other peoples' posts out of context

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, you've taken my example and hammered it to fit your argument

 soomemafia wrote:
If you actually read AllSeeingSkink's comment, it was about your misuse of the word "hate". Not about the players feeling too strongly.

..and make false statements that other people are blaming players for GW's mistakes even though they aren't...

 EVIL INC wrote:
The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it.

Again, another false statement.

We then went on and discussed the definitions of "competitive" and "WAAC" which actually have no proper definition and seemed to be a further source of conflict (IMO a "competitive" player is one who does exploit the rules as written, but EVIL didn't think so, and lumped people who exploit rules in as "WAAC" rather than "competitive").

He's also accused people of calling him names...

 EVIL INC wrote:
Continue to make fun of and call me names

...which never actually happened as far as I can see.

And also accused people of calling him a cheater....

 EVIL INC wrote:
You implied I was a cheater. Same as calling me one.

...even though, again, that never happened.

This is what is annoying other posters. Just because you say something is true (like, "the rules aren't part of the equation", "people are trying to convince me to hate", "people are calling me names", "people are calling me a cheater") doesn't mean those things are actually happening.

No one is arguing the blatantly obvious points that you outlined... people are arguing the contentious statements made without evidence in between those blatantly obvious points.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
snip

Yeah, I said I agree with some of his points earlier, not all. There´s an equal amount of fault on the other side though, and quite frankly if not straight up insults there are many posts that are unpolite and offensive at some level. I merely described a way of "discussion" earlier on a general level that is repeating itself here aswell as in many other threads, and practiced by a few staple individuals asfar as I can see. What´s happening here is like a carbon copy of some other threads. Was just my 2 cents on this "phenomenon."

Carry on with whatever you folks were doing.

competitive players are a major problem for a stable community of players. Not because they are not fun to play against (most of the time they are) but because they force GW and 40K in a very unhealthy corner. They move the competition from the table (were it should be) to internet forum in the list building section. Add to that the fact that not many players actually run complex scenario involving various objectives in favor of good old death match and you got all the ingredients to maximise the weakness of 40K rules (unbalance in the point system) while diminishing its quality (versatility). What GW needs is clients who buys armies made up of a bit of everything. That's how they make the most money (wich is what they want) and makes the game the most interesting on the tabletop and on display shelves (wich is what we want). Shure, you will have paid 60$ on a unit that suck on the tabletop wich doesn't necesarily mean it wasn't fun to paint or assemble (you pay for that fun too lets not forget it) and who knows, maybe that unit will became much better in another eddition while your best one may became very average. If you look in the past this will certainly become true. If you are to spend hundreds of dollars in a hobby, make sure it will last. Variety will protect you from rule change, give you more good time when painting and modeling and still isn't bad in the game departement espacially if people around you do the same kind of thing but their is the issue: the need of a good gaming group.

Yeah, and surprisingly enough, all of that would be unnecessary if GW wrote a balanced game.

Then you wouldn't have to worry about how competitive people are, or which models to buy, or worrying about different lists, or anything you talked about.

Thank you RunicFIN. I think more should stand up to this sort of behavior instead ofjust putting them on ignore. Even after you point it out, it still continues. lol

thegreatchimp, You have a good point. Many of my units I will field just because it looks cool or because I did nice conversion work on it. In games where I obviously have the upper hand, for example teaching rules or helping a rusty player come back into the fold, I will purposely overload my army with my cool looking models to help give an additional pleasant experience to the other player and help coax them to work on their models.

Among our private group we had different skill level players and our worst...well i dont think he ever won a game on his own. However, he enjoyed playing and the imagery/stories we came up with. After a while, he started coming up with his own private scenereos he did not tell us about....
1. Sometimes, he would pick one of our generals who had antagonized him in some way (my vampire lord killed his dark elf lord in an earlir game in an offhand manner and his elves wanted revenge on that particuler model)
2. That building had the local bar in it and he wanted control of it at the ed of the game so he could say he got to take all the liquor home with him.
3. He wanted to make sure my guys walked home so he would make it a point to try to kill every transport.
So on and so forth and if he managed to do his plan, he considered it a win on his behalf.

AllSeeingSkink, you officially have the patience of a saint.

epronovost wrote:
competitive players are a major problem for a stable community of players. Not because they are not fun to play against (most of the time they are) but because they force GW and 40K in a very unhealthy corner. They move the competition from the table (were it should be) to internet forum in the list building section. Add to that the fact that not many players actually run complex scenario involving various objectives in favor of good old death match and you got all the ingredients to maximise the weakness of 40K rules (unbalance in the point system) while diminishing its quality (versatility). What GW needs is clients who buys armies made up of a bit of everything. That's how they make the most money (wich is what they want) and makes the game the most interesting on the tabletop and on display shelves (wich is what we want). Shure, you will have paid 60$ on a unit that suck on the tabletop wich doesn't necesarily mean it wasn't fun to paint or assemble (you pay for that fun too lets not forget it) and who knows, maybe that unit will became much better in another eddition while your best one may became very average. If you look in the past this will certainly become true. If you are to spend hundreds of dollars in a hobby, make sure it will last. Variety will protect you from rule change, give you more good time when painting and modeling and still isn't bad in the game departement espacially if people around you do the same kind of thing but their is the issue: the need of a good gaming group.

I don't mean this as an attack on you, but it really is painful to read 40K players talking like this. Those things you are talking about are not assets. They are not virtues of the system. I don't think they're even intentional! They are simply players improvising around shoddy rules because they like the models, background and spectacle.

I'd rather not not have each new edition codex randomly make big chunks of my army useless or too powerful to be used without censure--I'd rather the majority of things feel appropriately influential on the game for their cost, and I'd expect things to get better across editions, not for each new one to be another spin of the roulette wheel. I'm certainly not going to accept it as an inevitable fact of life from a rules system that has been essentially the same for 15 years, when other games have shown much bigger improvements in their rulesets across far fewer editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thank you RunicFIN. I think more should stand up to this sort of behavior instead ofjust putting them on ignore. Even after you point it out, it still continues. lol

Seriously? You're still going to do this even when there's a well-written,polite and thoroughly cited post right above yours that points out the errors in your argument?

I mean, seriously?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thank you RunicFIN. I think more should stand up to this sort of behavior instead ofjust putting them on ignore. Even after you point it out, it still continues. lol

Among our private group we had different skill level players and our worst...well i dont think he ever won a game on his own. However, he enjoyed playing and the imagery/stories we came up with. After a while, he started coming up with his own private scenereos he did not tell us about....
1. Sometimes, he would pick one of our generals who had antagonized him in some way (my vampire lord killed his dark elf lord in an earlir game in an offhand manner and his elves wanted revenge on that particuler model)
2. That building had the local bar in it and he wanted control of it at the ed of the game so he could say he got to take all the liquor home with him.
3. He wanted to make sure my guys walked home so he would make it a point to try to kill every transport.
So on and so forth and if he managed to do his plan, he considered it a win on his behalf.

That's hilarious! Similar to the quests you were supposed to do when you took a Saga for a Space Wolf commander. Only funnier! Good on him

Elemental, Yes, because the post above was none of those things. just another example of cherry picking out partial statements and putting them out of context while ignoring their own actions and statements. Not worthy of acknowledging as to spend the time addressing each item would be a waste of time and only further the argument and their private entertainment.

thegreatchimp, It made playing him a eater challenge than it woulda been otherwise.This because we had to guess his "game objective"would give us red herrings he never ever was able to kill my Vampie Lord Manfed though Just to get his goat when my undead army lished and I gave it to him to repair and keep for himself, I pulled that model out so that it did not go with the army.
Then a year or so later I gave it to him as a present fully repaired with a fresh/better paint job/basing.

Makumba wrote:

But that would mean that you have enough money to spend on bad units or even bad unit set ups. And if that is true why not get a good army and spend the rest on random stuff from others.
On the other hand in places like I live, where w40k costs realy a lot more then it does in the US or UK, people just can't build multiple bad options and buy and play only with the best units.

Understandable. If I was paying another 50% on top of what I've had to pay, then I'd be a lot more thoughtful about what units I buy. I'm not rolling in money myself or anything, so far I've gotten by comfortable with the hobby by being resourceful when buying -ordering from discount stores, getting 2nd hand tanks and paint stripping hem, magnetising vehicles so I can swap our rhino's for razorbacks, etc. anc converting IC's from squad members where I can.

But to answer your question: I'd only have the money for one army at the moment. Basically I've structured it around a core of on units I like. As I'm playing, if I discover e.g. that my Grey Hunters are struggling vs tanks, then I'll restructure them into smaller squads and change the weapon loudaout to suit. It might mean painting up a few new melta marines. But if say my thunderwolves are underperforming no matter what I do with them, I'll still keep running them, I like them too much to drop them from the list. So in short - I'll tune the army to improve it where I can, but not at the cost of dropping models that I like. if it doesn't end up being an butt-kiker then I'm not going to be majorly upset, I can still be proud of the great modelling and painting I've done on it.

I've found thats the way to go. Instead of having a whole bunch of armies, I try to stick with one until I've got far more than I need in order to have something for every occasion.

Something I've also started doing, and I did before to a degree, it to use the same paint scheme for different armies. My "marines" have the same scheme as my grey knights and inquisition. They also share a lot with my guard so that they look good allied. But this lets me share units between armies. My 2 land raiders? I can use them with either marines or grey knights and the same goes for razorbacks and rhinos just as the chimeras can be used with guard and inquisition.
Not using one of the preset schemes and instead creating my own also allows me to use whichever marine army I like and sahe core unit's models so that I would need only to buy extra models that represent odd units like wolf cavelry and so forth.
Sternguard combi weapons? Holes drilled in the tops of the backpacks. push pins placed in them with different colors representing the different combi weapons. Afte their use, remove the pin.
I agree, magnets are amazing.
These and other tricks such as inventive conversions allow me to field "competative armies". does not mean I go all WAAC or that I even aim to win most games. I just like variety and options. Heck, for games, I usually just take about 10 minutes and a notepad/pen sit down and slap something together that catches my eye even for tourneys.

@EVIL INC

That's clever with the paint schemes. Takes dedication though -I reckon when I've completed my wolves I'll be so sick of painting dark grey that I'll move onto painting Eldar Harlequins in stripy pants. Ah yeah magnets! -couldn't recommend them enough. I'm just finishing magging up 2 rhino chassis, they can be either rhino, razor or preds. Even magnetised the HKs, storm bolterss searchlights as well as cosmetic stuff like a radio aerial. Painstaking work, but well worth it. I must try it on my special weapon guys, similar to what you've done, except think I'll make 3 sets of arms, 1 flamer, 1 melta, 1 plasma, and magnetise them at the shoulder

C**p, I'm getting a bit off topic here. Ah well!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also forgive my ignorance, haven't read every comment in this thread, but what in the name of Russ is WAAC?

WAAC is Win At All Costs. As you have see in this thread people equate that to all "competitive players".

Am I crazy or did he acronyms used to come up with what they were if you hovered the arrow over it. Thought it did but it isnt now. Course, I might be thinking of one of the other sites too.

I had considered making different arm sets like that. I just dont have the patience for it. lol Hope it works for you.

Looks like the merry-go-round has spun for at least one or two revolutions too many on this one...

We've laughed, we've cried, we've all learnt a little about the true meaning of Christmas. Time to move on.