Your attitude to playing 40k

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.

**Paradigm**

As the title says, I'm curious to see what the prevailing attitude to the game on this forum is.

I see a lot of people in the on the forum saying that the best units are the only ones that should be used, and a lot that don't share my opinion that just because a unit isn't 'the best', that does not mean it's useless.

My own opinion on the matter is that, while I play to win, that is more during the game than in army selection. I'll build an army I like the look and feel of, and then use that to win, rather than building an army for superiority from the outset. I also do not feel the need to take units seen to be 'the best' or to leave out units that are seen to be less than optimal. My mindset when looking at a codex is more about trying to find a use for every unit rather than trying to work out what is the most competitive choice in each slot.

Let the discussion begin.

**Guitarquero**

I honestly Try out every unit and character and see where their strengths and weakness' are... For example, I really dig Possessed I love randomness brings a good flavour to the game but i cant for the life of me make them work in my lists because to make them useful you gotta dump a bit of points into them where i can get the same output out of something far cheaper. Other than being ugly models, i enjoy there concept and play them more often if they just fit in the way i play chaos.
But Alas they don't so i just use an Optimized as possible list that i still enjoy.

**Happyjew**

I play for fun. Not monies. Different people within my group have different ways of playing their armies. Does it matter to me that Harlequins have not changed since 4th edition (except in regards to Veil of Tears)? No. I like them. They are fun, and if painted well can look awesome. Now if only I could paint well...

**gossipmeng**

I play to win, but on more of a semi-competitive level. Fluff and model preference will often get in my way.

**Blacksails**

Well, when I did play, I play with an optimized list within whatever fluff restrictions I want in my army. I play to win, but don't sacrifice my or my opponents' fun while doing so.

I'm willing to experiment with some units, but I tend to avoid obviously bad units.

Hell, its a game. Its a social experience. Its a way to meet people, have fun, test your mettle, run campaigns, imagine epic explosions and glorious melee combats, and utterly destroy your opponent or die trying.

But then again, I'm investing more in other games where there is significantly less gap between 'competitive' and 'casual'.

**Mr Morden**

I usually stick to models I like and look for casual games where we just have a good opportunity to blow each others stuff up. I am not the greatest player and I like to play loads of different game systems rather than focus on one

I do like winning but like it be a game rather than one sided.

but then I am getting old!

**SkavenLord**

Though I don't play very much (my last game was somewhere around 1 or 2 years ago I think), I do know if I were to play, it would probably be more to see what awesome, silly, or outright chaotic things happen. This does kind of mean footslogging my commander through constant gunfire to get into melee but if it works, I'll have a good moment to remember and will pretty much enjoy the rest of the game as well. I would probably throw in something OP if I felt it would be fun to use but then again, I could always "forget" to shoot with it if it's going too far.

**Peregrine**

Your poll is bad because it assumes that "units I like" and "units that are good at winning games" are mutually exclusive, and anyone who brings a list they enjoy is sacrificing optimization to do it.

**Paradigm**

Peregrine wrote:
Your poll is bad because it assumes that "units I like" and "units that are good at winning games" are mutually exclusive, and anyone who brings a list they enjoy is sacrificing optimization to do it.

That was not the intent, I was more getting at whether you choose a unit based on the fact you like the fluff/model or on competitive ability. Of course both can coexist, I am just curious as to what is the primary motivation.

**Desubot**

What no other option?

Play to win, optimized within models i own and painted.

**SYKOJAK**

Since I have just started up a local group, I play casually. I am in the process of building my army, my son's army, and my daughter's army. As well as getting everyone up to speed on the rules so we can have competitive games in the future.

**Jackal**

Needs an other option really.
Units that people like are not always bad.

My 40k is the same as my WHFB in that ill run a fluffy army with a theme to it.
This does not make it a weak list though.
Flesh hounds and bloodthirsters are solid in my khornate daemons, yet bloodletters really do lack.

**Paradigm**

I've edited the Poll to clarify a couple of the options. Of course there are dozens of sub-categories within these groups, but I've tried to cover all the bases in general terms to stop it going on forever. It's more about what makes you want a unit/army more, rules/effectiveness or fluff/model, really.

Jackal, I'd say you're themed lists would fit more with the 4th option, as the theme would seem to be more important than deliberately choosing the most effective units.

Desubot, that sounds like option 2, you still play to win but not through using the 'ultimate competitive' lists.

**Happyjew**

Fortunately for me, I play Eldar and my fluffy army is decent enough to win in my local meta. Except when I roll horribly. So yeah, most of the time I lose.

**Talore**

I use what I want. I try to make my lists so they can attempt to handle anything they could encounter reasonably well, but I'm not optimizing. People around here are relatively casual with their lists and I find it more interesting to see interesting things happen between varied lists of relatively equal power levels. I play 40k to be social, to have interesting games, and to justify my expenses, in that order.

**Rotary**

Fun... I don't think i would want to be competitive at 40k due to the cost of keeping up. Its a really fun game with some beers in your hand and friends around.

**Troike**

gossipmeng wrote:
I play to win, but on more of a semi-competitive level. Fluff and model preference will often get in my way.

Yeah, I'd probably describe my attitude to playing like this too. Though I generally aim to build a competetive army, I do insist on having a Canoness in my army, because fluff. But thankfully, as of the new AS codex, that's far less of a handicap than it used to be.

**Krellnus**

Hard to pick a choice, so I'll just type it out.
I play to win, so I'll optimise, but depending on the skill of my opponent, I will drop a few optimised units to play with some cool looking things for a change.

Or I'll just play my Dark Angels.

**ninjafiredragon**

when i play eldar, i bring the most competitive units, which are also the units i most like.

now whhen i play salamanders, its a whole new story

**Araenion**

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, Paradigm. I play with units that I like, however I don't like units that will disappoint me on the table. So I try and find a suitable combination between the units I own and if something sticks out, they're not included. That said, I run 1 Wave Serpent at 1750 points. I dislike spam with a passion.

**Jimsolo**

I like finding new ways to field, play, and combine units. I love finding combinations that have been overlooked or discarded. That's my primary motivation.

**ClockworkZion**

There should be a 5th option that says "I play Sisters".

Seriously I voted casual Meta for me. I don't play to win, I play to have a good time and do my best. I bring the things that are best in my meta to support that (plus it's not like I have a massive collection of options to choose from with my army) and that's that.

**H.B.M.C.**

I’m far less interested in the competitive aspects of the game, and have been that way for many years now (ever since I started playing the RPG really). That said, I’m not an idiot, and I don’t take “LOL randumb!” lists. I don’t go for netdecks or tournament lists, but I always make the best use out of what I have. I actually enjoy tweaking lists within an inch of their lives, but I much prefer narrative gaming.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't play to win...

Yes you do. Everyone plays to win. No one sets up with the goal of losing or drawing. Everyone tries to win. It may not be your chief aim, but you do play to win.

**ClockworkZion**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I’m far less interested in the competitive aspects of the game, and have been that way for many years now (ever since I started playing the RPG really). That said, I’m not an idiot, and I don’t take “LOL randumb!” lists. I don’t go for netdecks or tournament lists, but I always make the best use out of what I have. I actually enjoy tweaking lists within an inch of their lives, but I much prefer narrative gaming.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't play to win...

Yes you do. Everyone plays to win. No one sets up with the goal of losing or drawing. Everyone tries to win. It may not be your chief aim, but you do play to win.

Thanks for splitting hairs. Let me rephrase then for the folks who want to argue semantics for no reason:

I don't play for the sole reason of driving my enemy before me and hearing the lamentation of their women and children. My main goal is to have a good time. I try my best to win, but it's not my main purpose in a game, it's to have fun even if I lose. I just give my best game so that my opponent can also enjoy their game as no one likes playing with someone who is barely "there" and isn't really actively involved.

Better?

**spartiatis**

Mostly, i have a semi-competitive attitude.
I enjoy listbuilding as a "mental" challenge and process. Usually my lists are competitive but i play casually and tend to be over-lenient with my oppenent.

**Wardragoon**

I have used Sniper scouts without camo cloaks....that should tell you roundabouts where I fit in.

**Brother Payne**

My armies generally include models I like as opposed to those that are good competitively. Either that or those with cool rules like the Mawloc

**'Nidsnik Boreork**

Nothing like moving numbers attached to dice across a table to reduce the amount of numbers attached to dice that your opponent has.

At least I assume that's the logic of most powergamers, I'm sure there are some that found a way to have fun being ultra-competitive, modeling and list-building.

**Dalymiddleboro**

I bring competitive lists and generally play to win. I mean, if requested to I'll limit how competitive it is, but playing daemons it's hard not to bring a competitive list. The codex is so good! lol

**Swastakowey**