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 see no reason why you should'nt play to win, if you can't be bothered to play to the best of your ability then I see that as an insult to the other player.
I understand sometimes that perhaps a more experienced gamer might go a little easy on a newbie, but if both players are trying their best to win then you end up with a way more satisfying game all around.
Of course, there is a difference between playing to win and winning at all costs.
There may or may not be a "right way" to play the game, but it must be remembered that our hobby is by necessity a social one, if you just want to destroy faceless enemies then get an xbox.
I have only been in-hobby for 4 or so years, but I have never regretted losing to someone who was better or luckier or whatever, but there is nothing worse than a bad opponent.
I would rather lose to a player who is happy to win but still feel like I got something out of the game than to utterly smash an opponent but to demean myself by being a complete donkey-cave.
Again, tournement play may be different but I've never played a tournement so I'm not placed to judge on that one.
Ok, rant over.

Some of the comments so far have been discouraging but the comments that have been more positive and (to me) most encouraging make me wonder where in the UK the Limies on here are from? - I'm a Manc btw despite what my flag says (I'll get around to messaging a mod soon!)

"Oh and, I'm new: 'Donkey-cave'?" - Never mind, I made the mistake of googling it...







Sooo many edits

The thing that gets me is that nevermind "my way is the best way" that everyone has only one way.

- I like campaign & narrative-driven games
- I like tournament, competitive games (these are perhaps my favourite these days)
- I like casual, beer & pretzel games with my mates
- I like casual games with my mates playing uber-hard lists in preparation for a tournament
- Sometimes I field pure WYSIWYG, fully painted armies (usually at tournaments)
- Sometimes I field entirely unpainted with many proxies (usually at a mate's house testing out a new army before I buy/paint it)

If you only enjoy one way of playing the game fair enough. But not only is it not the only way but not everyone fits firmly in either camp.

Ah, I'm from Wiltshire myself.
Sorry about "donkey-cave", first time I used that actually.

Redbeard wrote:
Actually, I don't think GW puts that forward - they're on a 'four pillars' thing, where gaming, painting, modelling, and collecting are all seen as independent reasons to buy their stuff.

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree based on the amount of times I've seen them(GW) refer to it as The Hobby(the capitals are theirs not mine) or the GW Hobby, but I think that's an argument for another entirely different thread.

haha don't worry, I knew donkey-cave as something else any way.

I'd quite like to find somewhere to play in Manchester that isn't GW Arndale or Trafford center or Fan boy 3 but all the clubs seem to be out of my reach..

Not in Manchester but the North-west Gaming Centre is in Stockport isn't it? 10 minutes on the train from Piccadilly if I remember right.

What is 'traditional' gaming anyway? There have always been overly competitive sorts and dicks in the game. This is a geek sport, it attracts all sorts including the obsessives, weirdos and some people will do anything to win at the expense of anyone else's fun.

This talk of 'traditional' gaming and modelling is harking back to a time that didn't exist. One of the earliest examples of military modelling is that of the battle of Waterloo which was presented for public display. This was fine until it was found to be too accurate, it portrayed an accurate proportion of german troops in the forces opposing the French army. This upset the Duke of Wellington and others who had played down the contribution of the Germans, it was an embarrassment and the modeller was required to alter the scene to almost entirely remove them. Dickishness of the highest form from our Duke there.

If 'traditional' wargaming is what some would describe it's not warhammer, it's histrorical gaming involving collossal armies that take half a day to move a few inches. This fast paced Warhammer is utterly alien by comparison.

I don't see painting models as 'being traditional' . Painting models is painting models, for me a wargames army needs to be painted to be worthy of the battle field. Painting models isn't traditional as such, for a long time it was common sense due to the lead content if figures, but also because the army spent days hardly moving and took up an intire room the game was far more about the spectacle the the result of the game. It was more like historical reinactment with little men than a game like 40K is today, if it didn't look nice there was very little else.

I'd probably be described as a HAAC player, the creative hobby side of it is hugely important to making a game look good. If rules are silly, I'll alter or ignore them so the game makes more sense. I'll clash with the sort of person who wants to use the exact rules in the book to win if it seems a contrary to some sort of internal logic in the game or what feels right. I also think all figures should be painted because it looks good. If you see gaming as just gaming then perhaps you are not bothered by painting, but I thing games look sad and boring unless figures are painted and scenery looks good.

Redbeard wrote:
I don't -like- playing against net-lists. I don't -like- playing against Space Wolves. But in agreeing to participate in a social activity, I accept that there is a possibility that I might have to do these things. You don't -like- to paint... but your opponent doesn't -like- to play against unpainted armies, so show them some respect and put forth the effort to be part of the community.

This . . . Always keep in mind the community you are about to enter. If you bring a WAAC list to a local habby store and people get upset and don't want to play you, its all on you. If you bring an unpainted half made army to a tourney, prepare to get thrown out even if you payed for a plane ticket to get there.

Adapt to the community, don't expect people to adapt to you.

Guys, colour me embarrassed by my earlier mud slinging. It really HAS been a long day (12hr shift today!).
But I digress, back on topic. Surely it's possible to play a 'fluffy' yet very effective list?

And I agree that you should adapt to the group you are playing with. If you are playing against a group of hardcore tourney players then by all means throw together a kick ass, take you all on list.

If you are playing with your mates in a basement or garage with beer and pretzels etc, then feel free to set your own house rules.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:I beg to differ, those people do exist and they do post on Dakka. They are the people who are frustrated by the people who only want to power game and rules lawyers, rather than embracing the point of playing a game. They are the same people who are frustrated b the amount of work they put into their hobby, then see people come in with proxy armies, partially assembled armies, or unpainted minis.

None of these things are critical to the enjoyment of the game, but there are some of us, like my gaming group, who figure that the time wasted playing games-in-a-bottle and mathhammering the stats could have been spent in painting, modelling, and (gasp!) actual game play.

I'm guilty of this.

Howard A Treesong wrote:What is 'traditional' gaming anyway? There have always been overly competitive sorts and dicks in the game. This is a geek sport, it attracts all sorts including the obsessives, weirdos and some people will do anything to win at the expense of anyone else's fun.

This talk of 'traditional' gaming and modelling is harking back to a time that didn't exist. One of the earliest examples of military modelling is that of the battle of Waterloo which was presented for public display. This was fine until it was found to be too accurate, it portrayed an accurate proportion of german troops in the forces opposing the French army. This upset the Duke of Wellington and others who had played down the contribution of the Germans, it was an embarrassment and the modeller was required to alter the scene to almost entirely remove them. Dickishness of the highest form from our Duke there.

If 'traditional' wargaming is what some would describe it's not warhammer, it's histrorical gaming involving collossal armies that take half a day to move a few inches. This fast paced Warhammer is utterly alien by comparison.

I don't see painting models as 'being traditional' . Painting models is painting models, for me a wargames army needs to be painted to be worthy of the battle field. Painting models isn't traditional as such, for a long time it was common sense due to the lead content if figures, but also because the army spent days hardly moving and took up an intire room the game was far more about the spectacle the the result of the game. It was more like historical reinactment with little men than a game like 40K is today, if it didn't look nice there was very little else.

I'd probably be described as a HAAC player, the creative hobby side of it is hugely important to making a game look good. If rules are silly, I'll alter or ignore them so the game makes more sense. I'll clash with the sort of person who wants to use the exact rules in the book to win if it seems a contrary to some sort of internal logic in the game or what feels right. I also think all figures should be painted because it looks good. If you see gaming as just gaming then perhaps you are not bothered by painting, but I thing games look sad and boring unless figures are painted and scenery looks good.

I think many of us have been confused by the OP's use of the term Traditional Gamer. As this means something very different to those of us who do more than 40k.

It does niggle me when armies aren't painted, I do have to admit.

I am guilty of playing with PARTIALLY unpainted models but it killed me to play my Smurfs unpainted one time and since then they have to have atleast the primary colour on them (I don't mean the base).

I've pretty much sworn off gaming until my Guard and DA Successors are done.

That is how much I hate playing with unpainted armies.

Kanluwen wrote:I've pretty much sworn off gaming until my Guard and DA Successors are done.

That is how much I hate playing with unpainted armies.

Paint faster, obviously.

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I've pretty much sworn off gaming until my Guard and DA Successors are done.

That is how much I hate playing with unpainted armies.

Paint faster, obviously.

If only it were that simple.

My Guard are getting full conversions going on, extra leg plating and ammo bags, etc.

It's gonna be a fun project though.

Kanluwen wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:I beg to differ, those people do exist and they do post on Dakka. They are the people who are frustrated by the people who only want to power game and rules lawyers, rather than embracing the point of playing a game. They are the same people who are frustrated b the amount of work they put into their hobby, then see people come in with proxy armies, partially assembled armies, or unpainted minis.

None of these things are critical to the enjoyment of the game, but there are some of us, like my gaming group, who figure that the time wasted playing games-in-a-bottle and mathhammering the stats could have been spent in painting, modelling, and (gasp!) actual game play.

I'm guilty of this.

Same...
Although it's only really the mathhammering i don't understand that much...

As I have said before in other threads I'm very greatful I game with a bunch of mature folks set on having a good time.

We campaignstoryhammer as often as possible.

dave_salmon wrote:I'm a Manc btw despite what my flag says (I'll get around to messaging a mod soon!)

Fixed. You'll need to log out and log back in, and it may take a day or two to propagate through the system and show properly.

Mannahnin wrote:

dave_salmon wrote:I'm a Manc btw despite what my flag says (I'll get around to messaging a mod soon!)

Fixed. You'll need to log out and log back in, and it may take a day or two to propagate through the system and show properly.

Brilliant! Thank you! The more time I spend here the more I like the forum!


The problem with wanting everything painted before I play is that I've now got 10 destroyers, 10 immortals, 38 warriors, 1 monolith, 6 scarab bases, 4 pariahs, 1 lord and a night bringer to paint.....it's going to kill me.

Edit: Pariads? Wut...

One thing you can do is basecoat everything very quickly. If you're going the traditional necron metal, spray everything boltgun metal and paint the bases green (or brown, or whatever). Army painted. Then you can go back a unit at a time, ink and highlight them, pick out details, base them properly, etc, etc. But this way has several advantages - after just an evening's work you'll have no more "bare plastic" to offend your eyes with (even the most rudimentary basecoat looks better than bare plastic!), and it gives you a sense of achievement. Then you've got the first stage done, you can pick up a unit and finish them properly just by grabbing a paintbrush, no need to muck around with sprays or whatever.

dave_salmon wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

dave_salmon wrote:I'm a Manc btw despite what my flag says (I'll get around to messaging a mod soon!)

Fixed. You'll need to log out and log back in, and it may take a day or two to propagate through the system and show properly.

Brilliant! Thank you! The more time I spend here the more I like the forum!


The problem with wanting everything painted before I play is that I've now got 10 destroyers, 10 immortals, 38 warriors, 1 monolith, 6 scarab bases, 4 pariads, 1 lord and a night bringer to paint.....it's going to kill me.

I know the feeling, as I have a similar death note

9 destroyers, 2 monoliiths, 6 pariahs, 80 warriors,10 bases of scarabs for my Necrons

150 ork boyz, 30 nobs, 30 flash gitz, 6 kanz, 2 dredds, 9 trukks, 2 battlewagons, 20 lootas, 30 burnas, dozens of bikers and way too much other orky stuff before my orks are all painted.

I never take unpainted armies to tournaments though, and do those monthly, with different lists every time. That way my army gets painted bit by bit as soon as i have the list sorted, to get them done for next tournament

Lame thread with an OP that loves to put on his rose coloured glasses and pretend there weren't as many TFGs and everyone was "hardcore" niceguy 10 years ago in wargaming.

Its always btter to play for fun than try to kill everything.

Ascalam wrote:I never take unpainted armies to tournaments though, and do those monthly, with different lists every time. That way my army gets painted bit by bit as soon as i have the list sorted, to get them done for next tournament

Wait, this can't be right, haven't you heard that only WAAC jerks who don't paint their armies attend tournaments...

gh05tdemon wrote:Its always btter to play for fun than try to kill everything.

I find trying to kill everything often is a part of having fun...

Lord Inquisitor wrote:

Ascalam wrote:I never take unpainted armies to tournaments though, and do those monthly, with different lists every time. That way my army gets painted bit by bit as soon as i have the list sorted, to get them done for next tournament

Wait, this can't be right, haven't you heard that only WAAC jerks who don't paint their armies attend tournaments...

Ah, but I don't mind if I don't win the tournament It's a zen thing

I'm there for the good time, not the grand prize If I have a good time i've won, regardless

As long as I have a good time against several different armies it doesn't really matter to me where I place.

If i wind up against the same Blood Angels net list for all three games it damages my calm a tad, however I like variety in my enemies

Lord Inquisitor wrote:

Ascalam wrote:I never take unpainted armies to tournaments though, and do those monthly, with different lists every time. That way my army gets painted bit by bit as soon as i have the list sorted, to get them done for next tournament

Wait, this can't be right, haven't you heard that only WAAC jerks who don't paint their armies attend tournaments...

Impossible. With the exception of 'Ard Boyz, serious Tournaments require painting.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:But I digress, back on topic. Surely it's possible to play a 'fluffy' yet very effective list?

It absolutely is. There are plenty of lists that are fluffy and tough.

It can be a bit harder to put those lists together but it is certainly possible.

Some fluffy lists cannot be made tough, they just don't work on the table top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gh05tdemon wrote:Its always btter to play for fun than try to kill everything.

So you play 40K but you don't try to kill everything? You decide to leave some of the guys stuff alive? How does this improve the fun for you?

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Surely it's possible to play a 'fluffy' yet very effective list?

Yes, for varying values of fluffiness and effectiveness.