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 gave up playing the game because of a different breed of player, the win at all cost and sulk if you dont player. I had a friend that resorted to throwing his models across my bedroom when he started losing badly against my Wood Elves...
A: I dont count him as a freind anymore
B: There is far too many of tese types of players out their.

Theres nothing wrong with playing to win as long as your curtius, fair and your a good winner or good loser.

zeekill wrote:

Ascalam wrote:'Running a 'just for fun' list

This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

Because if everyone only played the 'best' lists, you'd only ever be playing against the same four or five lists. This would be boring.

So, the vast majority of gaming groups make an unconscious group decision to lower the 'competitiveness' level of the armies in friendly play, so that we can collect and play with the models we like and a face an interesting selection of opponents.

Of course, in a tournament different rules apply.

ArbitorIan wrote:

zeekill wrote:

Ascalam wrote:'Running a 'just for fun' list

This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

Because if everyone only played the 'best' lists, you'd only ever be playing against the same four or five lists. This would be boring.

So, the vast majority of gaming groups make an unconscious group decision to lower the 'competitiveness' level of the armies in friendly play, so that we can collect and play with the models we like and a face an interesting selection of opponents.

Of course, in a tournament different rules apply.

Well first off its like 10 or 15 lists, and even then every list has variations of it. And if it presents a challenge I don't care if I faced a list like it before. That just lets me be more prepared to play against it.

Theres a few key differences between Playing for fun, playing to win, and WAAC. I think Playing only with optomized list is borderline WAAC. I mean unless you dont really care for the IP or lore and you just play 40k cause its the tabletop game you can easiliy get the most games in cause its the most popular then most players have a favorite army or unit or something and that army or unit may not be competive or as good as an optimized army. Part of playing for fun would be playing with the army you LIKE and seeing how well you can do with it against others doing the same. Of course a lot of people (like you it seems) get their fun from making their army as good as it can be and you get a lot of fun from playing similar people but if you take that against soemone army that they built just for fun with cool units then it wont be as fun for him (or you) cause the match isnt balanced.

Personally I like playing games that give a 50/50 chance. Id give an analogy, I love racing games and Im really good. Now when I play others depending on their skill level and what they choose I choose accordingly. I'd rather give my opponent a chance to win than to wipe th floor with them just cause I can.

Few points, Zeekill, I'm pretty certain we play at the same shop and know who each other are there's a few things i'll point out:

1: There is a massive difference in play styles and play levels. For example, I have played in Grand Tournments for 7+ years now. I know what when I goto a GT sleeves are rolled up, i'm in for a awesome fun competitive game, I bring my optimal list, and let it fly. I play fair, hard, fast. That's my play style.

2: There is a massive difference in playing in a LFGS. A GT player who does not see that will always run into problems. Your list, will look horrific to many LFGS. Casual players are not up to snuff on their rules. They won't be used to talking and dialoguing about the rules. It will get ugly. If you want to still seek a "competitive" game in your gaming shop, tone down your list to challenge yourself. Otherwise your going to make your opponent feel you just wanted to kick their butt to the curb. Its an awful feeling to have.

3. Rules conversations. There is again, a different way to handle a rules conversation in a GT vs LFGS pick up game. In a pick up game, you need be more casual. Dice stuff off, offer do overs to the opponent, because they likely have no idea what your talking about. You want to make your game awful and not be able to find a opponent? Or do you want lots of pick up games. Part of being a really quality gamer is knowing your surrounding. GT level rules arguments are usually easy. "Hey look at page 5, its got blabah rule." Opponent: wow, never saw that one, cool thanks for pointing it out." Or "hey judge..."

4. Playing to win: I'm a GT gamer. I enjoy tactical, competitive play. I don't mind losing if my opponent is a good sportsman, and tactically takes me apart. I might be disappointed, but at the same part I learned something. LFGS players often do not think this way. They aren't looking for that. Their looking to check some dice and laugh. Its not going to happen vs a optimized list. A vetern GT gamer wiht a fluffy list, can often beat LFGS players with GT hardened lists.

5: Lastly, you may have been witnessed to the way I play my armies. In said LFGS, i don't get asked for pick up games often. There is this common flawed logical that GT gamers "only want to win." And people know I goto a lot of tournments in GW Voorhees land. What I do when someone asks me to play I...
-First say the army i'm playing lately its "i'm played chaos space marines"
-Next ask if they have a printed or written list they would like to use
-Next hand them 4-5 of my lists and say, pick a list you would really like to play against
-Ask to see their list.

Why? Often the FLGS player will notice "wow there are some really good lists and some balanced lists here." Often they will go right to the balanced or fluff list. I will then ask to see their list. I will then mention, i do goto tournments, lets dice for sides terrain etc. Handshake, and talk about there army. I don't even move a model until i have talked to my opponent, found out how much experience they have, or really know a little about them. Then I start. Why: because I know how experienced my opponent is. I'll know that maybe my opponent has played for 1 year. I'm going to offer dice off's, let him take things back, and play very casual. If he's a veteran and picks my fluffy list i ask. "are you getting ready for a event?" your list is really tweaked, do you need help with practice? I want my opponent to always walk away with several things
-a few laughs and willing to play me again
-having learned something
-willing to consider painting and tournment play
-not feeling like he has to go kick a dog or the wall

zeekill wrote:Minor Rules infractions, yes I do let them slide most of the time. But excatly what?, I'm just curious.

As for the 1" rule, I never said it was BS. The other guy called out BS when I told him about the rule. It's a stupid rule, but its one that can make or break a battle sometimes.

OK, that makes sense. What I meant by minor rules infractions, well, I suppose that's the kind of thing that's a judgement call, so it's hard to say. Genuine mistakes, caught early, should be corrected but sometimes even a major one it's best to forgive if it will prevent souring the game for both players. Unfortunately, there are always going to be scrubs who will take advantage of this, just as there will always be WAAC players.

About losing, I do still have fun with the game if I lost because of a well fought tactical battle. I love that, although it does make me leave the table slightly disheartened.Still I have no issue with it, I'll get them next time. If I lose because of such dumb luck its unbelivable, I still somewhat have fun, we still move toy soilders around on a table, but I kinda have a sour taste in my mouth from dumb luck losses.

Ah, OK. I think that most people who decry competitive play rail against people who play hard to win, enforce every rule to the point of hostility and both win and lose with no grace. Often, this will result in people reacting badly to any kind of competitiveness, associating it with jerky players they've played before.

zeekill wrote:

Ascalam wrote:'Running a 'just for fun' list

This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

Well, I know it might be a little misleading, but people play 'just for fun' lists...for fun. Just for fun, in fact. I don't need to win every time to feel like I had a good time. I value a close game, or an amusing game, far more. I'm not throwing any judgements on you, Zeek, but most of the 'Competitive' or 'Win at All Costs' players I run into are jerks. They are the gaming equivalent of a schoolyard bully. They get picked on in their high school, so they go down to the wargaming club and ruin other peoples' days to cheer themselves up. In addition, the typical 'Powergamer' (again, that I run into) is also the first person to cheat.

Now, in a tournament, sure, powergame away. I expect it then. (Hard money or soft plastic is on the line, and then all's fair.) But in a friendly (pickup) game? But recognize that not everyone is the kind of person who plays baseball is going to go out and run ten miles, spend two hours in the batting cages, lift weights for two more hours, and then go home and take a bunch of steroids. Some people are just going to get together with some co-workers on the weekend and have fun. The same applies to wargaming.

Have you ever seen The Cable Guy?

There's a scene in that movie where Jim Carrey's character shows up uninvited for a pick up basketball game. He then proceeds to be a ball hog, throw hard picks, and talk crazy junk.

When win at all cost guy shows up to a friendly game night I can't help but imagine him in blue spandex and talking with a lisp.

I wonder if they ever notice me chuckle.

It's fine if you want to play to win, but the problem with people that play to win is most people like that are a giant douche about it. Not everyone, but still. Like everything else, it's the bad apples that spoil the bunch.

Jimsolo wrote:

zeekill wrote:

Ascalam wrote:'Running a 'just for fun' list

This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

Well, I know it might be a little misleading, but people play 'just for fun' lists...for fun. Just for fun, in fact. I don't need to win every time to feel like I had a good time. I value a close game, or an amusing game, far more. I'm not throwing any judgements on you, Zeek, but most of the 'Competitive' or 'Win at All Costs' players I run into are jerks. They are the gaming equivalent of a schoolyard bully. They get picked on in their high school, so they go down to the wargaming club and ruin other peoples' days to cheer themselves up. In addition, the typical 'Powergamer' (again, that I run into) is also the first person to cheat.

Now, in a tournament, sure, powergame away. I expect it then. (Hard money or soft plastic is on the line, and then all's fair.) But in a friendly (pickup) game? But recognize that not everyone is the kind of person who plays baseball is going to go out and run ten miles, spend two hours in the batting cages, lift weights for two more hours, and then go home and take a bunch of steroids. Some people are just going to get together with some co-workers on the weekend and have fun. The same applies to wargaming.

Also, some people really enjoy playing models that they like! I am guilty of that. My GK's are 3 stormravens and dreadnoughts that are not *GASP* psyriflemen! My BA jumpers has tooled out vanguard and sanguinary guard. Why you ask? Because I love the models.

As already mentioned, if everyone was bringing their competitive lists all the time there would be almost no variation. I consider myself a decent gamer winning more often than not. I know how to write optimized lists and use them. I just find them rather bland and completely unoriginal. Even in tournaments I don't bring a fully optimized lists because I don't play in super competitive tournaments.

njpc wrote:Few points, Zeekill, I'm pretty certain we play at the same shop and know who each other are there's a few things i'll point out:
...
...
...

Ok... alot to take in.

Before anything else: HAI (you know who you are)! Long time no see.

I get everything you're trying to say, I 100% understand it. The thing is, when it comes to writing a balanced list. Its almost like I can't do it. The first thing I see when I look at a balanced list is 101 ways to make it SO MUCH better, and from that moment on its like a leech on the back of my neck constantly nagging me to make the list competitive. Not playing to the best of my ability in every aspect of the game (List, Target Priority, Objective grabbing, etc) just seems like its pointless when I could be doing all of that. Yes I CAN take that Land Raider. But for 30 more points I can get 2 Long Fang Squads kitted with ML. Why bother with the LR? Yes I COULD run a Black Orc Warboss with my Black Orcs. But then why not run Grimgor?

I suppose plenty of this also stems from the fact that GW raises their price so fast that there is no possible thing to compare it to, and paying $35 for half of a less-than-optimal squad or $20 for a less-than-optimal HQ might as well be the equivalent of slowly selling shards of my soul to GW.

Then again, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here, I can keep playing optimal lists only in tournies, or I can write balanced lists and play both in tournies and pickup games.If I MUST pick one, then even though it will slowly kill off my ego I guess I'll pick the one that lets me keep my friends

Sorry in advance for not reading the entire thread, but here's what seems to be the general feeling of myself and my clubmates.

I feel that it is mostly a matter of differing priorities.

Priority 1. What are your playing priorites?

Everyone Plays to Win, but the term would suggest (rightly or wrongly) that winning is first priority and that it takes presedence over the following things
-Making sure everyone has a good time.
-Enjoying other's company
-Having fully painted armies (the spectacle aspect)

For folks for whom the above consderations are more important than winning, it's easy to see where "Play to Win" would be a disagreeable term.

For example:
As someone who enjoys the spectacle and the company of friends as much higher priorities than winning, I have absolutely no interest in playing against someone who shows up with a very competetive attitude and unpainted miniatures. There's almost no point in me even engaging the person in a game as our priorites are so different. Maybe we can work out a comprimise (perhaps he plays a less competative list and I keep from gagging on all the grey platic) but if not, it's better to not play than to force a game that will not be enjoyable for both players.

Priority 2. Where does winning (or even gaming) fit into your life priorities?

For those who have more time and money -or have prioritized so that they do- to invest in the game they may approach the game with a different set of advantages. I realize it's not fair to judge those who put more effort into their gaming, but when a casual gamer shows up for a game and meets someone who has invested a huge amount of time in building their list, spending a large amount of cash on a powerfull combination of units, and knows the tricks of the game, they are going to get hammered and hammered hard. Fairly or unfairly, that's going to leave a bad taste in the mouth.

This is exacerbated by the fact that 40k, WHFB, and WM are games where list-building and knowing the special abilities of a myriad of different armies are as (probably more) important than tactics. Those with time and especially $ to invest have a massive advantage.

Example:
My bi-weekly gaming club is comprised mostly of working folks in their 30's. We don't have a ton of time to dedicate to gaming, so we focus on playing fun games (with painted figures) that everyone will enjoy. Someone who has taken the time to build lists that stretch or break the various rulesets we play is going to damage the enjoyment of all involved because we have neither the time nor interest to do so. We all want to win, but it's not our top priority.

None of the above reasons really justify the hate shown to "Play to Win" gamers, but hopefully it explains where differing priorities can lead to some of the bad feelings.

My advice for everyone is simple.
Find out what kind of game your opponent wants and what their priorities are ahead of time. Even if you end up playing with someone who isn't your type of gamer, at least everyone knows what to expect.

I won't lie, I'm a beer and pretzels gamer. I would much rather joke and have a relaxing game if its not a tournament setting. I tend to win more often than not but thats not that important to me.

There are several friends of mine who get a bad rep of being "unbeatable" which isn't the case. Their lists are solid (We are talking primarily Warmachiene/Hoards here, but GW games apply as well) and they know how to use them. That being said they will usually talk tatics with you after the game to help thier opponent get better.

I have found that bringing 2-3 lists really helps out as you can gage who you are playing. I also find it fun to experiment with other units to see if they have potential for upcoming tournaments.

That being said i think njpc's post is the best articulated advice in this thread.

My first game of 40k was against a WAAC player.

He took me and a friend, both of us had the AoBR set of marines and not much else (I think he had some scouts). We were going to play an quick game since we were still learning the rules, so the WAAC asked us if we could combine forces and we could team up against his Eldar (about 1000 pts. worth). We agreed and he brought out this army composed almost entirely out of jet bikes, Wave Serpents and a Fire Prism. He then taunts us the entire game because we don't have anything that can get through his armor and he was systematically eliminating anything that could possibly hit him. After putting up with gloating mid-game, gloating post-game, and more gloating the next time I saw him, I almost gave up on the hobby entirely, and I vowed to never be like that.

My other 40k experiences have been people that pull lists off the internet, the cheesier the better, so I never stand a chance. I haven't won a game yet. Probably never will, but I'm going to have fun with it, marching my army of terminators across the field.

So if you play to win and are encouraging to the opponent and maybe even offer advice how to beat an army like yours if they're struggling, more power to you. If you're a jerk, you ain't worth my time.

zeekill wrote:

Ascalam wrote:'Running a 'just for fun' list

This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

There are several reasons to take a 'just for fun' list:

- Some people don't like spamming the same thing in their list so they may take other things. After all variety is the spice of life.
- Some models are just too awesome not to field even if they're not that great. It'd be a shame to have them just collecting dust on a shelf .
- Fluff reasons because some people like to immerse themselves in game's universe when they play.

Even if its not your thing, hope that helps you understand why not everyone takes optimal lists

WAAC players suck because I'm not that great of a player, so while their busy beating up on my army all I can think about is finishing quickly so I can get home.

I'd rather lose a close game then table someone on turn 3. Its just more fun when both players are into it and doing well. Its just hard for me to do well against min/maxed lists and generals who go all out for the win.

Not trying to offend: Change your thinking, or you'll run out of opponents.

Firstly, the cost factor. I 100% get that. Do I want to run out and buy fluff units when most of my focus is GT's? No way. Most pure GT gamers have their tournment armies. My former WFB Demons, could not be toned down. People would ask "can i play that," i'd realize there is 1 way to play it, I only had GT models, no stand in's. I had some games that despite being friendly. LFGS thought my list was horrific and never wanted to goto tournments. I accepted, I cannot play that army in the shop. I gave it to the Manager to display, because I realized that's where it would do the best good to help him advertize demons. I still played it in tournments, but never in that shop.

I used to look at things like you did. I still look at lists and go "why the heck would you want to run that?" But yet I realize, that's the competitive gamer in me. There's a post above referencing professional baseball vs pick up games. Its the perfect analogy.

If you want to pick up game, be prepared to tone it down. Or don't play your full list. If your opponent is running 1500 pts of balance, run 1250 of optimal. Challenge yourself. You will make yourself 100% a more well rounded and more efficient gamer. Don't tell your opponent, keep it to yourself. You'll find and interest fact when you then goto tournments: you may not need your whole army to win, you also learn how to priortize targets, combats, and you learn more about the opponents army.

I'll also chime in for zeekill: he's not a WAAC player, he's competitive. He's also practice and learned against older veteran gamers. You've fallen into that intereting key void area. Where you can go into LFGS, analyze a list, and give advice to make it better. But you start to fall into a point you have to make a choice
1. Only play tournments?
2. Go into a FLGS, tone down list challenge yourself
3. Go into shop to paint, hang out, laugh, and not game as much.

Me? I game less in LFGS now. I focus more on tournments. I work a lot, have found more enjoyment in painting. I'm playing in the 40k escalation, doing just fine with a somewhat toned down CSM list. Its a challenge, its hard. But its been very rewarding to beat lists that are more optimal then mine. But when I come in for looking for a pick up game, I make sure try some new stuff out:

-Possessed are overly expensive, but they look cool
-Demon weapon of khorne for crazy killy lord whose going to kill himself, why not.
-Double lash in pick up game... No

You could always take up playing Necrons or Tau... then you really need that optimal list to stay competitve Smile and laugh, its just a dice game, your going to do fine!

Zeekill, I've said it once already on these boards and I'll say it again: it's only plastic soldiers being pushed around.

My attitude to wargaming is always try your best at tournaments. When it comes to casual gaming, have a laugh. Life's too short to get stressed out over minis.

I stick to playin regiments of men-at-arms even though they're rubbish (love the background) and I always roll out the trolls, simply becuase the models are f$$$$$G ace IMO. Do I care if I lose? No, I care about my friends and family, my job, having a good life etc. It's all about priorites.

Directly to the OP..

and if you want a real challenge then play with less points than your opponent! Ha ;-)

I had a 4 way Flames of War game the other night and a river cut the town in two. I was on one side with 1500pts 91st Recon Cavalry facing down around 2250 points of Fearless Veteran Fallschmiger (sp?) ... and I beat him!!! That was such a bloody enjoyable game as it really felt like a "no retreat, outnumbered game".

Try doing something like that if you ever get bored of winning dude

(and to the poster above, C'mon you Sexy Magpies, see you down here at Meadow Lane for a thrashing )

I will be brief since I should have gone to bed 2hrs ago, Warhammer and indeed any miniature wargame is at is heart, just as much of a social experience as say going at to lunch with friends, hell even White Dwarf showed us this (before it became the world's most expensive toilet paper ) and you are in essence trying to take out the core of the game with your question, no I'm not talking about your codices or BRB, I am talking about human psychology, no-one I repeat no-one, likes to lose, not now, not ever.

There is nothing that crushes human spirit quite in the way that losing, no-matter what it is, whether it is a pick-up game of 40k, or just a game of Texas-Holdem, hell even WoW raids qualify (yes Steve Carrell, That's what she said, even though I am a dude...).
You are clearly a gamer that is experienced enough to know what units to use, etc, however you are not mentally mature enough (like 90% of the internet, including myself) to have the paradigm shift, where you can unconsciously realise, that anything in life is never about WHAT you do, but HOW you conduct yourself about doing it, for example in that example you gave earlier, you called a distance that would probably have been less than a 1/2 inch.
In a LGS, that is generally not the way you would conduct yourself (It's like bringing the Turkish Flag to the Greek side of the Tennis court) all it is going to do is frustrate your opponent, which in turn leads them (whether they know it or not) to automatically forfeit their A game, which as you have said is your entire reason to play against people. Unfortunately for stubborn people such as you and such as me, you have to learn that whether or not you like it, in life you MUST give a little and you MUST take a little and it seems to me that you have been doing nothing but taking.

Notice how I have played on my point in this post, I eased the mood with a bit of humor, i.e. I played on your psychology, chances are, had I not broken up my post with humor that I probably would not have kept your attention and you would not have been able to fully pay attention to my post.

Now after rambling on for longer than intended, I will bid you good day. I know it is a lot to take in, but think about it, sleep on it if you have too and than see what you make of it.

I frown upon playing poorly to win.

An oiptimised list is not cheating, is not unreasonable.
Expecting a person to use their rules correctly [within their knowledge, and within reason.] is not unreasonable.
Rules queries are not unreasonable.

Using cheesy tactics that are within the rules, but bend the intention of the rule is an acceptable thing to frown upon, but you're not cheating.

Trying to get someone to play a rule your way is unreasonable.
refusing to let someone use your dice is unreasonable.
Being rude or insulting players is unreasonable.
Rules calling on EVERYTHING. especially while knowing nothing or worse, everything about an army. That is extremely unreasonable.

All in all, Playing to win is good. It's healthy, and it's acceptable.
Playing to win, by bending the rules, is unacceptable.

I think that's fair enough.

gr1m_dan wrote:Directly to the OP..

and if you want a real challenge then play with less points than your opponent! Ha ;-)

I had a 4 way Flames of War game the other night and a river cut the town in two. I was on one side with 1500pts 91st Recon Cavalry facing down around 2250 points of Fearless Veteran Fallschmiger (sp?) ... and I beat him!!! That was such a bloody enjoyable game as it really felt like a "no retreat, outnumbered game".

Try doing something like that if you ever get bored of winning dude

(and to the poster above, C'mon you Sexy Magpies, see you down here at Meadow Lane for a thrashing )

I think that's something that may apply solely to Flames of War.

Giving your opponent an extra 750 points in Warhammer, 40k, or an extra 25 points in Warmachine/Hordes? You'll get rofltstomped, unless the scenario is to 'hold out' for X amount of time.

It's why I love Flames of War now!

Also, if you're a tournament gamer, it wouldn't hurt to be friendly. I don't mind being stomped into the ground if I'm having fun and learning.

When I play against lower- level players [Most of my gaming group, who're mostly younger than 14 and not particularly good] I always try to make the game fun for them, but I'm still trying to win.

IT wouldn't stop them enjoying playing, and they'll die laughing [metaphorically]

I think that's better.

infinite_array wrote:

gr1m_dan wrote:Directly to the OP..

and if you want a real challenge then play with less points than your opponent! Ha ;-)

I had a 4 way Flames of War game the other night and a river cut the town in two. I was on one side with 1500pts 91st Recon Cavalry facing down around 2250 points of Fearless Veteran Fallschmiger (sp?) ... and I beat him!!! That was such a bloody enjoyable game as it really felt like a "no retreat, outnumbered game".

Try doing something like that if you ever get bored of winning dude

(and to the poster above, C'mon you Sexy Magpies, see you down here at Meadow Lane for a thrashing )

I think that's something that may apply solely to Flames of War.

Giving your opponent an extra 750 points in Warhammer, 40k, or an extra 25 points in Warmachine/Hordes? You'll get rofltstomped, unless the scenario is to 'hold out' for X amount of time.

It's why I love Flames of War now!

Yeah, you're probably right mate I've never tried a huge points difference in 40k but might give it a go...lol!!!

Love FoW for it's scalability

I regards to "soft lists" there is something else I also picked up from MTG and this is the element of going rogue. This is where you build a deck (list) that is competitive but in an unusual way, it also usually requires a greater degree of skill to use. However as people at tournaments have become so used to net listing and preparing to play against net lists they find there deck (list) does not have the tools to deal with it and the player does not know how to play against such decks (lists). Conley woods is a name that springs to mind in this regard.

So just because the OP is using a tournament net list it doesn't make him a good player. The good player is one who experiments and builds against the metagame to pull off what appear to be stunning upsets, but are in fact a product of extensive play testing and good generalship. Just because it was copied of the Internet and it doesnt look like a tough list it doesn't mean it isn't a wolf in sheeps clothing.

The trouble is too many poor players use tournament net lists as a crutch and then whinge and cry on forums because no one likes them anymore because they acted like a douche when they lost to a better general, not a better list.

zeekill wrote:

Ascalam wrote:'Running a 'just for fun' list

This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

(No offence meant)

To me honestly, running sub optimal units means you have to be creative in how you win. You've got to play to the strengths of what you've got and learn them more than the most optimal units, whose strengths are glaringly obvious. I think this simulates war better for me as well, because you are not always going to be running at your best and will often have to improvise with what you have.

Plus it throws a curveball at people who are used to seeing the optimal unit and know how to counter them, they've rarely seen sub optimal ones so might not know whats the best way to deal with them. Take for example Chaos 2x Daemon Prince LOS lists, people know how to deal with them because of the frequency its used. Mixing it up with Sorcerors or Chaos Lords might actually be a good thing and provide unexpected advantages.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
The trouble is too many poor players use tournament net lists as a crutch and then whinge and cry on forums because no one likes them anymore because they acted like a douche when they lost to a better general, not a better list.

I'll agree with this. As non-tactical as 40k is, a better general with a sub-optimal list can beat a lesser player with a optimized net list.

I always have fun while playing 40k and have never won a game

a message to all you WAAC people: remember, what it all boils down to is that your playing with plastic toy soldiers.

Since i'm ending up on to of the multiquote as espousing a 'fun' only list i just want to reiiterate my original post, to avoid confusion.

Playing a fun list (since the OP doesn't get the attitude) is for me playing a list that has the models i think look best, or are most enjoyable to play, not neccesarily the ones with the best rules. I enjoy playing them regardless of effectiveness, so my list is fun for me to play.

Hardcore list VS hardcore list with no TFG is fun

Non-optimized VS non-optimized is fun

Hardcore VS non-optimized (without warning) is not fun.

To really mess with TFG WAAC's heads i'll sometimes give them 250 pts (1750 fun list vs 2000 WAAC) and then play that fun list hard. The less optimal units are just that, but the WAAC-holes will probably not have played them too often. It's nice to hand someone like that their unkillable list at the end of the game with a smile and a 'good game' having nuked their prized uberunits with a mob of grotz or a trukkfull of Flash Gitz.

I sometimes take 100 Necron Warriors and a lord at 2000 pts. To me it's very fluffy and fun. It mathhammers out to be about the most pathetic list in the Necron Dex, but it'll surprise you sometimes


In short: Play people like you for optimal fun. If you like to play har, play someone who liked hardcore play. If you like to play fluff/themed play someone else who likes that style, if you can