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.

Hey all! I have an announcement to make....

I've been on Dakka for a while now, and I really can't help noticing all these posts and threads about people complaining about their codecies/units. It got me thinking.

Wouldn't the Dakka community be so much better if I didn't go on everyday and see a negative comment about some godforsaken unit or model? Yes, some entries can be quite terrible in codex's, but for the emperor's sake there's no need to whine constantly. Accept it, move on. I don't think I can say I've been on Dakka for a day and not someone cringe at a Hellbrute, rant about a Grenade Launcher, or some other damn unit or piece of wargear that gets some stick. It's time to grow up people!

But if you really feel like a man, you USE those units and wargear

So, guess what? That's what I'm doing. I've made a list with some GL's in it. I've made an Warhost with some Banshee's in it. I'm buying a dreadnought off Forgeworld to turn into a Hellbrute, and no amount of criticism or reasoning is going to stop me.

An honest contradiction? I'm a casual player. But when I'm using these units, that's going to change. I'm going to be competitive as possible, and see whether or not these guys really deserve the stuff I've heard on Dakka. And I'm not going to play that list just once, oh no. These are going to be my standard lists, and I will play game after game to rule out any intervention from the dice gods.

I know these units aren't great compared to other choices in each codex, I get that. I'm going to find out if they are BAD or not. 40k should be a challenge. Challenge accepted.

so, before I suffer a storm of internet hate from the advocates of "competitiveness" and "in it to win it" players, I'd like to ask if anyone out there actually agrees with me. Do you like to use a rusty old unit or piece of wargear from time to time? Does anyone really seek a challenge, other than an easy "internet list super competitive units" easy win?

I will return with my reports on these "damned" units. If they really are failures, then mock me all you like, for I think it's justified for me to look like an idiot. But if these units really are playable, then I think we better get our heads on straight...

Stop the whining! Long live a good community!

Stamped G.A. wish me luck!

People can complain if they please, I choose not to though. I look at it this way: I can play the game and try to have some fun or I can not play the game and go complain instead and be guaranteed not to have fun.

And really, the reality is that all the books have bad unit that's got terrible rules. Doesn't make your army special.

I recommend Pyrovores, the Parasite of Mortrex, and Termagants with stranglewebs.

I've actually made some of these work... So good luck to you! You will likely have fun

thanks guys! Wow, I haven't got hate mail! provided that SBG's post wasn't sarcasm

With my CSM i'm soon to be moving to an exclusively assault focused force; Khorne berserkers supported by khorne bikers, maulerfiends and blood slaughterers.
Blood and skulls are all Khorne demands.

For the sake of fairness, I should point out that your opponents' skill levels and list optimization will make a big difference in the outcomes of your games. Not saying you shouldn't do it, but winning even a bunch of games does not necessarily mean that the unit is "great" or "good." Indeed, many cases of incessant whining come about as a result of units who are not actually bad, just redundant. With such units, you could easily still win many games, but you would find that you win more using the "better" unit.

In any case, good luck to you! Fun is the most important aspect, after all.

I had to hover over your flag in order to check what country you're from.

To "get rid of the dice gods", you'd have to play ~500-1000 games though...per list

But whinning is part of the hobby.

It's the same for history lovers that watch "history" films. Part of the entertainment value is trashing the mistakes afterwards with your friends and having a laugh.

Sometimes GW does legitimately deserve criticism. However I do agree with you. I play chaos and I dont use helldrakes. Never will. I refuse to relyon a crutch. my main Word Bearer list has two hellbrutes, two dakka fiends, terminators and raptors. I play the units I like. If it does not look cool, I aint using it.

Or you could take a bunch of good units, combine them into a list with little to no understanding or strategy, and then play only low level competition...oh, wait.

I recommend IG. Take the following units exclusively:
HQ
Command squad w/4xGL, Kreed, Kell, and Nork Deddog
Elites
3x ratlings
FA
3x Rough Riders
Troops
2x Penal Legion (because they can actually be pretty decent when you need to score objectives)
HS
3x Deathstrike

If you play this and get a winning record you might actually prove something.

Xca|iber wrote:I should point out that your opponents' skill levels and list optimization will make a big difference in the outcomes of your games

Yes, but only at low skill level and weak lists. Once both players become proficient at the game, the relative difference between their skill levels becomes very small, and so stops mattering as much. The same, of course, is true for list building. In fact, it's possible to play the exact same list as someone else which, in that case, means that the lists have become a control variable in determining who wins.

Once you have good players with good lists, the results of individual die rolls really do determine the winner.

Anyways, at the OP. There is no way to stop people from whining. People whine because they're emotionally invested in their negative opinions. Most people are incapable of changing their opinions once they become emotionally invested in them. Thus, nothing will stop the negative opinions, and thus nothing will stop the whining. As far as being annoyed that people whine, as they say, "misery loves company" and "trolls die by starvation". Literally the only thing you can do most times is to ignore it, or, if you're feeling civic, try to set the record straight so that other people don't pick up the negative opinions, and thus don't become whiners themselves.

The best you can do isn't to stop other people form being bad, but to be good yourself. Always be upbeat and inquisitive. Be positive and, most importantly, be helpful. Be the kind of poster you want everyone else on dakka to be. The more helpful, useful people are in a single place, the more that helpful, useful people will be attracted to that place. You don't push the bad away, you inspire the good to come to you.

 Ailaros wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:I should point out that your opponents' skill levels and list optimization will make a big difference in the outcomes of your games

Yes, but only at low skill level and weak lists. Once both players become proficient at the game, the relative difference between their skill levels becomes very small, and so stops mattering as much. The same, of course, is true for list building. In fact, it's possible to play the exact same list as someone else which, in that case, means that the lists have become a control variable in determining who wins.

Once you have good players with good lists, the results of individual die rolls really do determine the winner.

...snip

I don't disagree with you. What I was trying to get at was actually something you mention in your article:

More importantly, this explains why 40k is so dependent on list building. The tools that you bring determine the kinds of odds you can play. Be deficient in something, and your opponent can always set odds that you will have a very difficult time using player skill to match, if you're even able to at all.

I feel like most times people get into a debate about the effectiveness of a unit, they're really talking about this right here. People want to know if unit X can broaden the odds they can play (e.g. does this unit bring anti-tank to my anti-infantry heavy list) and does it avoid leaving an exploitable deficiency in the odds they can play (e.g. it adds anti-tank, but is also my only vehicle, which can be exploited beyond the ability of my player skill to compensate). The so-called "bad" units are ones that are seen as failing to cover for (or introducing) exploitable deficiencies. As you talk about in the article, certain types of lists make it easier to cover more of these deficiencies or exploit them in your opponent's list (such as spam lists) and so they become the gold standard for unit effectiveness.

Using a list that plays the odds differently or seeks to exploit different aspects of your opponent's list is fine - as you say, ultimately it's just dice. But it's never very helpful to make general statements about units like "I use this and win; it is good," or "this unit has these odds in these situations and therefore it's bad," which is where I've usually seen these threads go. That's all I really wanted to say.

If someone can use so-called "sub-optimal" units then that's awesome, but it's important to see the whole list to know how and why it works for them.

Interesting. A whining post about ... whining. I think my head will implode with the sheer irony. meh.

On to your actual points: I play DE even though I own most of the armies GW produces; and that does include Necron, GK, etc. Yes, I have 2 Helldrakes and am considering buying another just because.

Why do I play DE? Because quite frankly they are an absolutely HUGE challenge. Our greatest strength is cover: which Tau and an increasingly wide array of other weaponry effectively ignore. The only way for us to get Skyfire is through an ADL: which doesn't make any sense for this army to use.

Can you win with DE? Absolutely.... Even against armies with 2 Helldrakes (haven't tried 3 yet). Just don't make a single mistake; they are very very unforgiving. And no, I don't do Venom spam - arguably their best build.

thanks for the replies people!

Sigvatr - it's a country that nobody gives a damn about except for when you look at the fact that it has the highest GDP per capita in the world. Other than that it's just a desert with a lot of oil and gas underneath it. Welcome to Qatar!

as for the thing about reliability, I understand that I might need more than a few games.... this experiment might take a while...

Ailaros - a good contribution, and I absolutely agree with you. Perhaps this thread might convince newcomers not to whine. Thanks a lot!

Clively - yup that is irony for ya but I don't think I could have conversed it in any other way without "whining". And good to see that you like a challenge with your DE. Kudos to you, and all the others that said similar things!

thanks for all the good luck too!

G.A.

clively wrote:
The only way for us to get Skyfire is through an ADL: which doesn't make any sense for this army to use.

I though DE had flyers with S9 lance weapons?

Tactical_Genius wrote:

clively wrote:
The only way for us to get Skyfire is through an ADL: which doesn't make any sense for this army to use.

I though DE had flyers with S9 lance weapons?

Okay, yes, I forgot about those. Probably 'cause, well, they are completely forgettable.

But think about it from the other point of view. If someone makes an army list containing Warp Talons and put that army list up on Dakka for critique, then of course i will advise for him to use a different unit that does the role better. If he then calls me a WAAC's gamer who won't use 'Fun' units, all i can think of is what is his definition of fun? Whats fun about using a sub-optimal unit? He put the army list up for us to judge, its our place to say what he could do better/change. Playing a Dark Eldar army which uses up all its elite choices with Mandrakes isn't a 'challenging army' its simply a bad army list. Using a single unit of Mandrakes isn't any more 'fluffy' then then using yet another unit of blasterborn, there is a reason its what the internet advises, its because they are usually the better use of points.

Using 'Bad' units doesn't make you a 'Man' (I'm going to brush over the quasi-sexism) it makes you a person playing with a potential handicap. If you win with that, OK, have fun being the underdog. I know how that is, i play wood elves where even with an optimized list its an up hill battle. But don't call everyone else an 'In it only to win it' or 'Easy internet army list with no imagination' player simply because they choose to use a list that uses its points better then a list containing 'Bad' units.

The units you use won't be failures (Pyrovors, Banshees) in the sense they won't do what they are meant to do (Drop pod down and flame things/Slice up MEQ's in combat) but they will be 'failures in the sense there are better things that can do their role for cheaper or there role simply isn't needed. Your Banshees if they make it into combat will kill Marines, but those points would still be better invested going towards a fire prism which could wipe the squad as well as function as anti tank.

Its not a fact of this unit isn't good, so im going to use it to be different and prove its worth and to be a 'MAN!!!'. Its a fact of the unit maybe good, but the points are better used elsewhere. Its time to grow up and smell the Meta.

I will only get a bit edgy (yes I admit I do get a bit edgy on the forum at times, hey at least im honest ) over threads that have some guys trying to shout down players who wanted a bit more for their codex... when they have said that their armies are one of the newer ones, it does grate me a little bit that they think they have the right to shout down another, just because they wanted a bit more.

I am a casual gamer, Im currently using a Warpsmith and have made a Warpsmith forge list that I am currently happy with, and will continue to use, because I like the list and I like the models, that to me keeps me playing

 Musashi363 wrote:
Sometimes GW does legitimately deserve criticism. However I do agree with you. I play chaos and I dont use helldrakes. Never will. I refuse to relyon a crutch. my main Word Bearer list has two hellbrutes, two dakka fiends, terminators and raptors. I play the units I like. If it does not look cool, I aint using it.

I agree, sometimes criticism is warranted. Don't confuse it for whining. That said, I play SOB Canoness with command squad. I won't play units I don't like no matter how awesome they're supposed to be.

@OP - go for it. I'm with you. I also find it interesting to include "bad" or "inefficient" units.

Don't push it to the point where you don't have fun though.

General Annoyance wrote:
Clively - yup that is irony for ya but I don't think I could have conversed it in any other way without "whining".

There are all sorts of ways that you could have expressed your point without putting down people with differing opinions to your own as 'whining'.

While I'm all for more positivity towards the hobby, this is not the way to go about it, and your post would have been much more effective without it.

The only thing I whine about is the escalating price for the models and the fact that I have to pay $50 more for the same thing. Other then that I just want to have fun with the hobby

In the club where i play, there is a dude that always always use net list, the last weekend table my space wolves using a famous CSM net list, the fliyng circus or something like that , three brass turkeys, four daemon princes, of course with chaos daemons as allies, the game make me think about the game, i neither enjoy making the list neither enjoy the game, the dude only play to win at all cost, he even buy and clone his turkey to play this list , and i have to rely on sm marine allied to use a storm raven to counter the flying chicken, even have to make something i hate, i had to proxy the f... flyer , so, keep me thinking that there is no joy in playing with or against the op units, i am not saying to never play with it, but if you have a hole codex full of units, cool background, options and more, why always use the sames?, why always looking to win at all cost; i enjoy playing my space wolves, all and every unit, i love the background of the wolf scouts, grim and purposeful warriors , that enjoy the thrilling of hunting behind enemy lines , or the stubborn and strict wolfpriest, that lead the youngers into the fray, but at the same time making jokes and give a slap in the nape to a young blood claw for make a bad joke, that's the kind of thing that influence my lists, the fluff, the background and the good looking of my models , i see no sense in always playing the same units, the same models that i don't like and still play it because always give the victory, i don't like that . I support you cause, and hope you have great time playing with yours models and list

Well then i can tell you your problem. Your not playing the right people. Whenever i am playing a pick up game i always ask what kind of game they want to play, competitive or fun/fluffy. If they say fun/fluffy and there is no one else to play, i will play them by swapping out my DE venom spam list to a more fun (Yet equally competitive, just cooler) Elfzilla list with 3 wraithlords, an Avatar, a spiritseer and a wraithseer if points allow. Its important when playing pick up matchs that you both get the type of game you want, and if the person you are playing against doesn't want the same thing and wont humor you, you should simply play someone else.

But to counter some other things why is there no joy in playing OP (Or effeective) units compared to 'bad' (Inefficient) things? Why would i use a pyrovor when i could have a biovor to do the same thing better? A Codex full of units be damned, whether then are 'cool' or not in your opinion wouldn't change other units do its job better so if you take it knowing that, its your choice. Also who says they have to be the same models? There is an massive variety in the way to put a daemon prince together, and ALL my venoms have different iconography. I like venoms, i'm sure if someone didn't like venoms they wouldn't use venoms.

Just because your choice is to play a 'fluffy' army that doesn't cover all the bases (Anti Air/Tank/Meq/Teq/Horde) and you play someone who simply has a better list (Spamming good units is one way to make a good list, mighty boring though so many spruce it up a bit) you can't complain they are WAAC. I'm just seeing it as quite hypercritical that people who *Make the choice* to play fluffily are calling people who *Make the choice to play optimized lists* WAAC players is wrong. You want them to respect your choice, but it has to work both ways.

Pfft, this is ez mode.

If you really want to gak on the whingers, play an uncompetitive unit in an uncompetitive army. An Ork force of Flash Gitz and Weirdboyz would do the trick

hmm... I thought the thread had died. Oh well, time to reply.

ALEXisAWESOME - your first post did stir my argument a bit I'll admit. I'm not trying to get people to go "oh yes we must use these more inefficient units because we are men". What I'm trying to do is clear all the stuff these supposedly "bad" units get stuck up for. I might find out that a Hellbrute is actually quite good, for instance, but that still won't stop me from using a HellDrake in my list instead. That's my intention, at least... perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly.... don't expect miricales from a 15 year old I'm learning how to be more articulate in my writing - still a work in progress

I mainly posted this thread because I got a bit fed up with whining (ironic). No player is perfect, and I certainly don't tut at competitive players for wanting to win, but I think too many people put winning above having fun, and that's not how the hobby should be done. I've been competetive in a lot of 40k games, writing lists with optimal units and the like (although I never try to make it unfluffy - if I did that then what's the point in 40k? I may as well go and play a game like risk or chess). It never seems to pay off though, but that isn't why I posted. I never mind losing, provided I had fun. An "optimal list" generally never fufills this for me....

Play Iyanden, take several wraithguard quads in wave serpents with spiritseers and farseers as well as a wraithknight or 2. There, instant fluffy/fun competitive army. I'm sure you will find the same thing about hellbrutes as everyone else. Havoks do there job better if you want hard AV (Las cannons) and forge fiends do soft AV better while the Heldrake does AA better. Indeed, try it out, decide what works for you. Maybe you want to over load enemy AV so you are taking as many things with an AV as you can, but there are better things to do it. But my biggest gripe with the Hellbrute is that it has NO MODEL! I don't want to buy DV everytime to get a single Hellbrute in the exact same pose as the one before all with the same weapon (Easy conversion into auto cannon/las cannon but still) and the GW site has stopped selling chaos dreads full stop. So now its either go forge world (Whom incidentally, make dreads usable thanks to access to blast masters and such) go go home.

As for grammar how you got your point across i apologies if i didn't get your meaning, don't expect miracles from a 14 year old

Qatar was a pretty neat place to visit.

On topic, challenging the internet's perceptions can be a lot of fun. I did that with my Sisters in 5th while using Repentia and not only did I have fun, I did pretty well most of the time too.

That said, you will have games were you just can't win normally because it's just a bad match up for you. In those cases I recommend focusing more on playing the mission than your opponent's army. Make everything you do a means to playing the mission and you can pull through more often than people think.

Hmm...Just read all the posts...Been thinking of my response so here goes! Also < To show what this mite become. You have been warned ^^;

What I see here is an argument between Competitive vs Casual. While also being: To Win vs Fun. Fluff vs None Fluff or Competitive fluff. Optimize vs Semi if not Non Optimized. So without further ado on to my point of view on the matter:

On Topic I think what you are trying to do is very appreciative. Trying to prove the worth of some models that get some unneeded/Over done heat. Though no matter what everyone will have their own opinion in the end so it may be a losing battle. Or you may change the tide! Who knows!

Personal/History of 40K so far: I've been watching 40K for some time now. Listening to my friend's battles and opinions. Even went online to read up on my army before I built it which if you look up the quote in my sig, and the pic I use along with my user name that should be obvious whom I play. I've only played a handful of matches thus far while having watched a ton more. So Idk how much what I say will matter here.

Personal view: I think too many players now a day go for winning. But at the same time too many people go for what is better on the table top then going with what just seems fun and sometimes yes fluffy if not just wacky. I've face Duel Hell Drakes that...I'll be honest with you from the way the guy acted, the way he described it, I didn't have a chance in hell of winning. Along on that note I didn't show up for playing for about two or so weeks. My resolve to play was killed because of my first run in with a competitive list/player/well...ya. All the matches before hand I had a blast playing even when I lost(which I'll be honest I haven't won a single match. But I've had tons of fun in all of em) I had fun. This one match...I put on a smile during it when on the inside I just wanted to pack my stuff up and leave because of how the guy was. Now recently(check one of my posts regarding SW vs CSM 2000K which was last Sunday but I posted the batrep a few days ago) I got blasted but dang it I had the most fun I've had in a good while! Sure by the end I only had 1 unit that consisted of 3 Grey Hunters and the Wolf Priest I brought along side Logan but dang it was intense and fun! Even the helldrake was fun! Now some of the lists I've faced are both fluffy, fun, and somewhat competitive. But minus the Duel Helldrakes one I had fun in each every single one.

Play style: I'm a fluffy player. I field Logan Grimnar proudly, I don't own a Rune Priest but have tried him out twice and I'll be honest...I don't like em. Yet so many other Space Wolves players I've seen on the internet praise them and deem them as the best HQ choice. I field Wolf Guard Termis without Combi weapons. When I get the models I'll field normal Wolf Guard with combi weapons most likely. I foot slog proudly across the field with the one except of the one Rhino I own. Along with field all sniper Five man Wolf Scouts. I'll even field an Iron Priest if I could get all the stuff I want for em. I'm fluffy, I play for fluff and I couldn't care less for winning.

Summary: Play how you like it. What ever puts a smile on your face and makes you feel good inside. if you feel as though there are those who play that you don't have fun against then avoid them. Because in the end what I've learned from this hobby and from my friend is this: if you aren't having fun then there is something wrong. Sure it's good to try and prove that some units shouldn't get the bad rep they get(Logan didn't even make it in the top five for top HQ units for SW but idc I think he is the best). Which hey I agree with. I think Hellbrutes look B.A. And I bet they kick major along with most units that I see get dunked on. Someone out there loves em, and plays em. if you want to prove that they have worth to those who deem other wise...just make sure you have fun man. And hey! Try and make them flufffy! Who cares about Optimizing? That's overrated because in the end...if something needs optimizing in the game..I say it' the lack of people who don't see the fun in the things they rag on.

Something I've always found interesting is how players who like to laud the "underdog" lists and talk a lot about how so-called "underrated" units can be used just as effectively as anything else - and that anyone who dismisses them just doesn't know how to play properly (or is a stupid netlister, un-fun WAACer, etc etc) - often turn around and complain about how "OP" some units are, or how dumb it is to play a so-called "optimized" list or how it's not fun to go up against someone using a combo that's "unfluffy."

If underrated units are exactly that - underrated - then they should perform just as well as units that are considered "good." So a list that's designed to use them should be the same as any other optimized list. So really there should be no reason to complain about anything being OP or "unfun" since underrated units don't actually hinder your army in any way. Yet often we see that this isn't the case (indeed, some players will talk about how X unit is so underrated, then in the same breath blame a poor performance by that unit on Y unit being overpowered). If we just change our frame of reference a bit, and make the so-called "overpowered" units the competitive baseline (i.e. for tournament play), then those units are "normal" and anything worse than them are - lo and behold - worse. And yes, sometimes it's just the matchup being bad. We all have games like that - but it's not logical to blame a bad matchup on something being "OP," if we're assuming that all underrated units are perfectly usable.

I'm not saying it's bad to run fluffy lists or deliberately avoid competitive games/play-styles, but it seems hypocritical to me to say how great an "underrated" unit is then complain about the OPness of a different unit. If you can't take on a competitive, optimized list with your "These are great because I like them" underrated units, then you are poorly matched against your opponent in terms of your skill or list. In the former case, you can always get better and keep trying - always the best option. In the latter case, reevaluating the usefulness of the allegedly underrated units is probably a good idea.

Sorry if I come off a bit aggressive with that... Wasn't my intention, but I really dislike when anyone who even tries to make their list mechanically better gets labeled as "an un-fun/WAAC/terrible gamer that sucks the soul out of 40k." It's no more true a label than calling anyone who takes "sub-optimal" units a bad player.