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'm a powergamer. I'm not shy about it, I don't try to hide it either. The first thing I do when I check out a new codex is write the most powerful list for an all-comers environment, and the next is try to modify it to make it better.

Now, sometimes someone will get a bit mad at me for doing so, and will get in my face for not "playing for fun."
Obviously our definitions of this term is different, but that's not the point.

Anyway, my point is, why do people consider playing with un-optimized lists fun? Is it really all that much fun to see your units perform poorly compared to what you could be using the points on? Is it fun to see your units die before they do anything?

For example, someone once commented on me spamming Obliterators, and said instead that I should take a Defiler. Well why would I do that, considering a defiler does plenty less damage and is a HUGE target, being only AV 12 and towering above all possible cover. It would probably die before I could have any fun with it.

I feel the game is at its most fun when both sides are very evenly matched and the games are close and interesting.

Therefore I'll try to make my lists worse for worse opponents and better for better opponents.

Both players need to be having fun for the game to be fun and worth playing repeatedly.

zeekill wrote:Is it fun to see your units die before they do anything?

Jokaero lists (Coteaz + lots of monkeys) are decidedly not efficient, but they are a lot of fun to play because a monkey army is a conversation piece.
Ditto a 180 hormagaunt army. While your opponent may dislike your movement phase, how could it not be fun to throw something like 540 attacks in an assault phase?

I love Carnifexes, and I dislike Trygons. Regardless of the inefficiencies involved, I run Carnis.

zeekill wrote:I'm a powergamer. I'm not shy about it, I don't try to hide it either. The first thing I do when I check out a new codex is write the most powerful list for an all-comers environment, and the next is try to modify it to make it better.

Now, sometimes someone will get a bit mad at me for doing so, and will get in my face for not "playing for fun."
Obviously our definitions of this term is different, but that's not the point.

Anyway, my point is, why do people consider playing with un-optimized lists fun? Is it really all that much fun to see your units perform poorly compared to what you could be using the points on? Is it fun to see your units die before they do anything?

For example, someone once commented on me spamming Obliterators, and said instead that I should take a Defiler. Well why would I do that, considering a defiler does plenty less damage and is a HUGE target, being only AV 12 and towering above all possible cover. It would probably die before I could have any fun with it.

1) It can be fun to challenge yourself. If you bring a hardcore list and simply stomp all over your opponent, wheres the fun in that?

2) I like the narrative and background elements in the game, and as such I like to build lists that represent that on the table-top, regardless of the power level of the units involved.

3) My army must be aesthetically pleasing. Models that are great will be included, no matter how weak they are, while models that are crappy will be ignored, no matter how powerful they are.

4) Opponents who ignore the above, and concentrate on building a hardcore list to crush all enemies are, in my opinion, terribly low brow. It's just cheap laughs.

The enjoyment of not playing a "meta-list" or WAAC list (IMHO at least) is that it provides a bigger challenge on a tactical level, and being big into strategy I enjoy that more.
Another big reason for me at least is that I am huge into the Fluff, and will play fluffy lists just because I enjoy the story coming out of it,

Well why dont you ask if your opponent is a WAAC or a TAC kinda guy.......

Most TAC players dont spam units as this defeats the purpose of well rounded armies....

a WAAC player will spam the best unit until he no longer has room in the FOC and the moves on to the 2nd best unit etc.....

A fun player just plops down what models they enjoy, making, painting, etc... and the WIN is only a part of the hobby and not the whole hobby.

Winning is in the eye of the beholder.... You may table me, but my army is 100% painted and converted and looks awesome, So I win in that regard etc....

Winning in a game that is based on codex strength, dice rolls and luck with a little dash of tactics knowledge is hardly why I got started into 40k, WHFB or FoW......

I play for fun because I don't have a WAAC personality. Never been obsessed about winning, and I don't care if I lose. This is the CSM list I ran a couple weeks ago:

-- Daemon Prince, wings, warptime, MON (a fluffy choice I think is pretty good also)
-- x5 Terminators, x4 Lightning Claws, x1 chainfist and x1 heavy flamer, Land Raider, MOS
-- 2 Units of x5 Plague Marines with x2 Meltas in Rhinos with combi-meltas
-- 2 Obliterators
-- x5 Havocs, x4 Lascannons, IOCG
-- x5 Bikers, x2 Meltas, Champion with Power sword
-- Predator, x3 Lascannons, Possession

This isn't a bad list, necessarily, but there's certainly room for improvement. I wanted to make a list that felt like what a warband would possibly use, while still being good at a couple things. So I guess I'm middle of the road.

I never run "FLUFF" lists (ie, 6 units of eight berserkers, MOK prince, etc), because I don't see them as being smart decisions, unless you're doing an RPG game or something with lots of narration. At the same time, I stay away from lists with two MOS princes, plaguies and oblits. Symmetry also has a lot to do with my army. I like it to look a certain way when it's on the board, and I position things on the board however I think looks nice, rather than how strategic it is.

My approach depends because I have some friends who can't turn off the tournament mentality.

Sorry, forgot to mention a few things:

1) Fluffy lists aside. I can for example understand the point of making an all-Khorne CSM list, as horribly inefficient as it may be.

2) I tend to try to play as much as possible with the more competitive side of my LGS, as stomping on the newer players is no fun.

3) Don't bring paint into this, you can build any army and paint it beautifully. This is solely for the gaming aspect of the hobby.

Thanks!

rigeld2 wrote:
Ditto a 180 hormagaunt army. While your opponent may dislike your movement phase, how could it not be fun to throw something like 540 attacks in an assault phase?

Well considering that against a well built army you will have no way of rolling that many attacks because everything will either be in vehicles or combats can be positioned in a way (using vehicles as choke points) to minimize your attacks in combat to a measly 10 models, most likely even less.

In essence, this list would be stomped into the ground by a smart player, even with an un-optimized list. 10 vanilla marines can wipe 30 gaunts over 2-3 turns easily if you use 2 rhinos to choke the combat and allow minimal strikebacks.

Same goes for the other choices mentioned, just with other tactics. I dont really feel like typing a seperate paragraph for each of those.

I play the models I like the most. If they happen to be weak or inefficient, then so be it.

I find the idea of not building a list to win odd.....the point of the game is to win and have fun doing so IMO :3

Ok well if you want to play to win why not go buy a TAU codex.......

At least with that dex you can play to win all yuo want and still let the other guy have a chance lol

Milisim wrote:Ok well if you want to play to win why not go buy a TAU codex.......

At least with that dex you can play to win all yuo want and still let the other guy have a chance lol

Because then you don't win...

When it comes down to it, this game is about 30% Luck, 30% Tactics, and 40% List building, at least IMO. Why would I rip my chances to win apart by playing Tau?

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE tau. I have an entire army. But they suck right now. Can't wait for an update.

You said you build armies to win at all costs.... by taking Tau you give yourself that need by fielding as many suits as possible with the best loadouts etc..... You build your Tau army to do the most damage per point you possibly can....

Because we all know the codex is weak.... this in turn gives your opponent a chance to have fun because they are not WAAC players... So both sides get what they need out of the hobby....

Getting a DRAW with Tau against GK, SW, BA, DE etc.... Are in fact WINS! Striving for the actual WIN with Tau on a consistent basis would make you a Fantastic player. Winning with the GK most of the time is ho hum at best, since most player expect you to win.

I like to build a list to be tactically viable, but I also keep a theme for the force in mind. The big deal that's important is that your opponent also does the same thing.

Cutthroat gaming is where it all breaks down. Gaming among friends is the best, and what 40K was really designed for, in the beginning. The tournament scene is just something shoe-horned in to the point where eventually that's all people use as a basis for the 'hobby' side of things.

Milisim wrote:You said you build armies to win at all costs.... by taking Tau you give yourself that need by fielding as many suits as possible with the best loadouts etc..... You build your Tau army to do the most damage per point you possibly can....

Because we all know the codex is weak.... this in turn gives your opponent a chance to have fun because they are not WAAC players... So both sides get what they need out of the hobby....

Getting a DRAW with Tau against GK, SW, BA, DE etc.... Are in fact WINS! Striving for the actual WIN with Tau on a consistent basis would make you a Fantastic player. Winning with the GK most of the time is ho hum at best, since most player expect you to win.

When I make a BA list, or SW list, etc, I see the power that the army possesses, and I build the army in a way that can handle everything I could go against: AV 14, MC spam, Rhino spam, MEQ spam, Hordes, so on, so on, so on. Everything but GK, because GK are simply SO overpowered that there isn't any point in worrying about losing to them. Just want to share, my first local tourney that I won was with GK, the day after I finished building my army (i.e. My first 3 matches ever using GK). Thats why I don't worry about losing to them.

When I play, I have to plan, position, and target prioritize correctly. And when against a list close in power to my own, this is EXTREMELY fun. I usually achieve this because, again, I tend to play with the competitive scene.

Why would I choose to struggle with Tau, and pretty much have to list tailor every match?

zeekill wrote:Well considering that against a well built army you will have no way of rolling that many attacks because everything will either be in vehicles or combats can be positioned in a way (using vehicles as choke points) to minimize your attacks in combat to a measly 10 models, most likely even less.

So your counter to why I play fun lists is that they're easy to stomp into the ground?
...
And? I said it's not effective (even though gaunts can glance a Rhino to death with Adrenal Glands). It's still fun to put down that many models.

Hell, I go tournaments planning to lose. My last list was a Winged Tyrant, 26 genestealers (10 and 16 in two units), 8 Shrikes, 20 gargoyles, 9 Warriors and a Carnifex in a drop pod - with a unit of Termagants to fill out the points.

It was a lot of fun. I ended up placing 15/20 (did well against a GK DCA deathstar list amazingly, but utterly failed against a Necron AV13 wall).

If you must win to have fun, you won't be able to understand that. There's nothing wrong with that mindset, just understand that you're never gonna "get" how the other have lives.

zeekill wrote:Anyway, my point is, why do people consider playing with un-optimized lists fun? Is it really all that much fun to see your units perform poorly compared to what you could be using the points on? Is it fun to see your units die before they do anything?

Why do people consider only running completely optimised lists fun? You only use a small portion of the codex, ignoring units that, while they might be fun to use on the tabel, just aren't 'good enough'. Is it really only fun when you're winning?

There is a middle ground. You can be competitive without powergaming.

The reasons people play any table top game are different. Sure you can make a list to win but winning doesn't mean you're having fun, because winning isn't everything. I would rather play a close game and lose, rather than utterly destroy my opponent. That's just boring as all hell.

zeekill wrote:Is it fun to see your units die before they do anything?.

If they're getting caught in my Shokk Attack Gun, or Kharn killing his own men, or a Chaos Dreadnought going nuts... yes. But in all seriousness, you are taking that out of context. Sure we don't want to make a stupid overpowered list but that doesn't mean we want to take units that don't work.

zeekill wrote:Why would I rip my chances to win apart by playing Tau?.

Because you can still have fun playing Tau.

Because even if you struggle to win you still fielded the best army you could.

And lets be honest Tau are weak but they are no way an insta loss with a good commander.

Proving your a good commander by losing close games is more important to me than tabling a guy by turn 4.... Anyone who barely beats a Tau player most likely has a new found respect for that player....

Imagine how a guy feels who just lost to Tau? Especially a like minded WAAC player! They most likely go home and slash up!

rigeld2 wrote:
So your counter to why I play fun lists is that they're easy to stomp into the ground?
...
And? I said it's not effective (even though gaunts can glance a Rhino to death with Adrenal Glands). It's still fun to put down that many models.

Hell, I go tournaments planning to lose. My last list was a Winged Tyrant, 26 genestealers (10 and 16 in two units), 8 Shrikes, 20 gargoyles, 9 Warriors and a Carnifex in a drop pod - with a unit of Termagants to fill out the points.

It was a lot of fun. I ended up placing 15/20 (did well against a GK DCA deathstar list amazingly, but utterly failed against a Necron AV13 wall).

If you must win to have fun, you won't be able to understand that. There's nothing wrong with that mindset, just understand that you're never gonna "get" how the other have lives.

Sorry I should have been more clear. I assume the gaunt horde is fun because you get to roll lots of dice and make lots of attacks and kill lots of stuff. But that's why its not fun, because it doesn't do that.

Footslogging troops towards your opponent is not very fun. Move 6, Run D6, remove models. Move 6, Run D6, remove models. Move 6, Run D6, remove models. Its not even fun from a tactical standpoint in addition to a "I want to win" standpoint.

Also gaunts, even 30 of them (90 attacks), only glance 2-3 times if the rhino moved 12"

-Loki- wrote:
Why do people consider only running completely optimised lists fun?

Because you don't handicap yourself. (Although, there is a limit. I don't play GK outside of tourneys or "Friday Night Fights")

-Loki- wrote:
You only use a small portion of the codex, ignoring units that, while they might be fun to use on the tabel, just aren't 'good enough'.

Yes. Because the other ones are not worth the points compared to other options you could take. Again, you handicap yourself.

Also its a tactical decision. Do I take Purifiers as troops or do I leave them in elites to not kill 150 pts on Crowe? How many Warp Quakes do i need? Is the fragility of Psybacks worth spamming them, or will that lose me KP missions? Intresting decisions.

-Loki- wrote:Is it really only fun when you're winning?

No. Its most fun when I'm winning though.
Also considering my W/L ratio is at least 20:1, I kinda get looked up to by newer players for advice. Feels nice.

-Loki- wrote:There is a middle ground. You can be competitive without powergaming.

No you can't. You're either competitive or you're not competitive.

The middle ground would be the people that act competitive, but are not skilled enough at the metagame and make poor choices, such as grabbing a 8 man squad of incubi + 2 Haemonculi as a deathstar thinking that "it kills everything".

zeekill wrote:

Milisim wrote:Ok well if you want to play to win why not go buy a TAU codex.......

At least with that dex you can play to win all yuo want and still let the other guy have a chance lol

Because then you don't win...

And here we get to the ugly nugget of truth.

The desire to win is so strong that you couldn't consider taking a less powerful list, because that might reduce the margin you win by.

Why wouldn't you want to make it hard on yourself? Do you always play video games on the 'easy' setting?

You asked Why people play with un-optimized lists....

So far you have been given like 40 answers why and you still argue other people opinions......

You said it in the first post.... Your definition of fun varies to a lot of players...... And that is NOT the point...

When in fact; that IS the ONLY point of playing with plastic toy soldiers.

Kaldor wrote:

zeekill wrote:

Milisim wrote:Ok well if you want to play to win why not go buy a TAU codex.......

At least with that dex you can play to win all yuo want and still let the other guy have a chance lol

Because then you don't win...

And here we get to the ugly nugget of truth.

The desire to win is so strong that you couldn't consider taking a less powerful list, because that might reduce the margin you win by.

Why wouldn't you want to make it hard on yourself? Do you always play video games on the 'easy' setting?

No, on the contrary. I usually play it on the hardest setting that it is actually able to be beaten on.

Again, I dont take GK and play it against the kids that started playing 3 days ago. I take SW, DE, and soon Necrons and play against the people that also make similarly-powerful lists

The issue is that some people think it is a sin to build powerful lists

zeekill wrote:The issue is that some people think it is a sin to build powerful lists

Oh I get it, you're mad by people's opinions so you made a topic for the sake of arguing people's opinions... Funny.

Sovspot wrote:

zeekill wrote:The issue is that some people think it is a sin to build powerful lists

Oh I get it, you're mad by people's opinions so you made a topic for the sake of arguing people's opinions Funny.

zeekill wrote:I'm a powergamer. I'm not shy about it, I don't try to hide it either. The first thing I do when I check out a new codex is write the most powerful list for an all-comers environment, and the next is try to modify it to make it better.

Now, sometimes someone will get a bit mad at me for doing so, and will get in my face for not "playing for fun."
Obviously our definitions of this term is different, but that's not the point.

Anyway, my point is, why do people consider playing with un-optimized lists fun? Is it really all that much fun to see your units perform poorly compared to what you could be using the points on? Is it fun to see your units die before they do anything?

For example, someone once commented on me spamming Obliterators, and said instead that I should take a Defiler. Well why would I do that, considering a defiler does plenty less damage and is a HUGE target, being only AV 12 and towering above all possible cover. It would probably die before I could have any fun with it.

Do you play in tournaments ? They are awesome and you will find like minded players .

Most of my lists consist of "What are my guardsmen bad at, and how can I get as many of them into that kind of position as fast as possible?"

The point is, I play the exact opposite of WAAC. Mostly I try to have lots of fun doing the tactically absurd. When I feel like playing serious, I'll play serious, and make a list to reflect that, but even then, I like to write lists based on fluff.

I once made a list with a CCS, 2 guard vet sqauds, and as many ogryn as I could fit in. I used some converted ogres from fantasy to make the mass ogryn army. I also brought Nork.

I play with a few friends occasionally because there's no FLGS nearby, and I live in the middle of nowhere Illinois. When we do play, we don't really make competitive lists. Some of that is that we don't necessarily have the models for it, and part of it is that we don't want to have a super-powerful list. I can't speak for them, but when I'm playing my goal is for everyone to have fun, and (having been on the receiving end a few times) just getting stomped isn't fun.

zeekill wrote:No. Its most fun when I'm winning though.
Also considering my W/L ratio is at least 20:1, I kinda get looked up to by newer players for advice. Feels nice.

You see, to me, as soon as you start considering your win/loss ratio, you've stopped playing the game to have fun. You might have fun when winning, but it's secondary to actually winning. You're playing to win, and might just occasionally eek some fun out of it on the way.

This isn't a lifestyle. You can't make a living out of winning. It's a social game. If I'm going to do something in my spare time, I make sure it's fun, otherwise I might as well just be at work, I make sure it's enjoyable even if I'm not winning.

But hey, that's my opinion.