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.

zeekill wrote:

Draigo wrote:You keep naming best case scenario.

In the case of DE they outrange gk, flickerfield, Shadow(which reduces your range when shooting at them), etc.

You also seem to forget gk die to 100 + splinter shots just as much as theirs but they have more troops. If you throw a dreadnaught at wyches great! That means you're not shotting their blasterborns and ravagers. They don't call wyches a tarpit for no reason.

Long Fangs are hurt by psybacks? You don't say but that means you have to get through the rest of the army and not get shot by those long fangs first. lol Those missiles/lascanons etc work awful well on that low av.

DE Lances have a 36" range. Psybacks have 36", Dreads have 48." Psycannons have 12" drive up + 24" if I need the extra firepower.

SW are a good match for GK at >24" range. I was just commenting before that DoW hurts the LF, not helps them. The psybacks dont have much else to shoot for the first few turns so softening the LF isn't bad.

Actually with the shadow your range is 6 in shorter so all youre gonna have is dreads. 3 dreads 12 shots 9 hits 4 hits maybe 2 pens which with flickerfield nullifies 1-2. Oh noes so out of my 9 you maybe got 1! lol Yup Im thouroughly outclassed. Dude you need to play more seriously. Right now sounds like you read to many of those gk are op threads.

Draigo wrote:

zeekill wrote:

Draigo wrote:You keep naming best case scenario.

In the case of DE they outrange gk, flickerfield, Shadow(which reduces your range when shooting at them), etc.

You also seem to forget gk die to 100 + splinter shots just as much as theirs but they have more troops. If you throw a dreadnaught at wyches great! That means you're not shotting their blasterborns and ravagers. They don't call wyches a tarpit for no reason.

Long Fangs are hurt by psybacks? You don't say but that means you have to get through the rest of the army and not get shot by those long fangs first. lol Those missiles/lascanons etc work awful well on that low av.

DE Lances have a 36" range. Psybacks have 36", Dreads have 48." Psycannons have 12" drive up + 24" if I need the extra firepower.

SW are a good match for GK at >24" range. I was just commenting before that DoW hurts the LF, not helps them. The psybacks dont have much else to shoot for the first few turns so softening the LF isn't bad.

Actually with the shadow your range is 6 in shorter so all youre gonna have is dreads. 3 dreads 12 shots 9 hits 4 hits maybe 2 pens which with flickerfield nullifies 1-2. Oh noes so out of my 9 you maybe got 1! lol Yup Im thouroughly outclassed. Dude you need to play more seriously. Right now sounds like you read to many of those gk are op threads.

You can move a Psyback 6" before shooting...

Also 6" move + ~2.5" disembark + 24" range is ~32"-33" for Psycannons. I hope you don't assume you will always be able to guess exactly 36" range.

Again I know which is why I move as well. Not talking IG here..

A good rule of thumb my friend came up with for a mutually fun game:

build to draw, then play to win.

If you both build uberlists, then the game is fair and palying to win works fine.

If you both build less optimized lists, and play to win, the same.

Draigo wrote:Again I know which is why I move as well. Not talking IG here..

Assuming you want to shoot me, in your shooting phase you will be 36" away.
Unless you have a way to move in the assault phase like Eldar bikes, I will always be in range to shoot you back.

But keep going. I want to be able to pull this out if/when people call my GK OP.

I'm a casual everything(in all of my hobbies), so I tend to go for 40k armies I like the look of..

Which is why I have a Tau, Daemon army(WIP) and a Sisters of Battle Army(when I win the lotto and can afford all the metal models)

But I always build a list with Synergy in mind. I don't like spamming Fireknives or dropping a Fatecrusher/Fiendweaver list. Why should I? Someone else already did that and made it popular.

I run squads with specific purposes that mesh together in an effective way. Is it the most effective? No. Will I win tournaments? No. Will I win Beer and pretzel( well more like Mt. Dew and Buffalo Wing[I get boneless wings and eat them with a fork to not mess with my paint scheme. ])? Sometimes. Did I have fun regardless? With how little I get to actually play 40k, Yes.

Everything else in life( work and RL responsibilities) is so serious, Why should your down time, your fun relaxing time, be the same?

Now if being a WAAC player is fun for you, do it.

And there is nothing wrong with playing a video game on easy on the first playthrough for the story.

zeekill wrote:

Draigo wrote:Again I know which is why I move as well. Not talking IG here..

Assuming you want to shoot me, in your shooting phase you will be 36" away.
Unless you have a way to move in the assault phase like Eldar bikes, I will always be in range to shoot you back.

But keep going. I want to be able to pull this out if/when people call my GK OP.

Most claim op because they can't figure out a way to win or their dice "fail" them.

See always being within range assumes that your vehicle is not blown up. I have a better then a 50% to do just that and get first attempt to do so.

Draigo wrote:

zeekill wrote:

Draigo wrote:Again I know which is why I move as well. Not talking IG here..

Assuming you want to shoot me, in your shooting phase you will be 36" away.
Unless you have a way to move in the assault phase like Eldar bikes, I will always be in range to shoot you back.

But keep going. I want to be able to pull this out if/when people call my GK OP.

Most claim op because they can't figure out a way to win or their dice "fail" them.

See always being within range assumes that your vehicle is not blown up. I have a better then a 50% to do just that and get first attempt to do so.

*QuestionMarkFace*

With a single Lance? 50%?

1 Shot
.66 Hits
.33 Pens
~.22 Results in which I can't shoot back. Slightly more because of glance or failing the Ld 10. So lets just say ~.25

I think I did the math right...

So it would take 4 lances to guarantee that my Psy cant shoot.
But then ofc that assumes a perfect spread of rolls

The GK are a very powerful army, no doubts about it.

I still do not understand why you dont take a weaker army and try to figure out how to win a majority of games with it.

That is a challenge any so called 20-1 general should be taking up. You do 20-1 with Tau... and I will show you some respect.

I am a fluff player but I like to win also. Doesn't everyone?

I play a varied bunch of people at my LGS. they range from noobs to experienced players. All of which like to play rather interesting lists that range from fluff to whatever I feel like today lists. We call ourselves competitive but not Power gaming level. All of us want to win of course, no one really ever wants to lose. But we also want to win with tactics and playing ability more then super units and spamming.

I don't get the WAAC players. They take away the fun for others. I agree that you might be having fun. That is what you enjoy. Every game is not a tournement. Fun for me is playing the game that I love and doing the best to my ability. Having close calls with some units and wipping out others when I shouldn't have. Maybe even telling a story while I am playing kind of feel.

Next models. They all have good points and bad points. It is really how you use them on the field. A very good tactican can take a simple army list with stuff thrown in it and win against a good spam army list. Dice of course being average. I for example take Meganobs on foot. I don't see a problem with them. Most would not take them besides in some kind of transport. I really don't think they need that to use them. They useally survive as there is to much else to deal with. If they don't then hey they helped draw fire away from something more important.

I would have to agree with most though. If I were to ask you to play a friendly game and you were very rude.(In general, not you personally) I would never play you again. In tounements I have no choice in whom I play. After all it is just a hobby with plastic figures. I think most have forgotten that its a hobby first.

1 dl? You the 30 I can fit in at 1850?

I don't mind if my opponent tells me he's bringing a WAAC list so that I can do the same, but if he comes to play me, knowing I'm bringing a fluffy or friendly list, and brings a WAAC list, that's a crappy thing to do.

And YES! I'm going to bring painting int it! I paint my armies to a good tabletop standard because I enjoy seeing painted armies on the table. Nothing loses my respect faster than a kneejerk hardcore player with an unpainted space marines army that is Blood Angels one week, Space Wolves the next, and Grey Knights the next. You're not making any friends and you know it.

Ascalam wrote:A good rule of thumb my friend came up with for a mutually fun game:

build to draw, then play to win.

If you both build uberlists, then the game is fair and palying to win works fine.

If you both build less optimized lists, and play to win, the same.

I think we're pretty much in agreement on this point.

It also just occurred to me (from both your post and Anvildude's post) that much of the "Playing for Fun vs Playing to win" is dependent on both a person's opponents and selection of opponents. For example, a player in a familiar gaming group might play mostly casual, mostly competitive, or an even spread of the two types of games, all depending on the groups preferences. Since the group is familiar, the player will often naturally gravitate towards a list-writing style that suits the distribution of their games. For myself, I know that all my friends play optimized, competitive lists, and that means most of our games are geared towards (friendly) competition. As a result, my lists are also generally more competitive.

On the other hand, a player looking for pickup games in a more public environment (or even just at a large FLGS) will have very little intuition about what everyone else is running. As a result, such a player might be more inclined to run the most competitive lists possible, to minimize the chances of getting stomped (which no player likes).

Anyway, it's late and I've been rambling too much in this thread. Just my last 2 cents on the matter (until tomorrow )

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

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

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

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

When you walk into a store and sit down to play, are you getting paid for winning? If some 12 year old who jsut started playing sits across from you, and you crush him or her so bad they never play again, does that help the hobby/game down the road? Do you get great joy in taking the fun from someone who just wanted to kill an hour or two?
You ask why people just play for fun...well I work all week, I want to take a break, have a drink and kill time. Tomorrow I am having a BBQ, couple of cases of beer, and a couple other gamers over to play. The Ork player's list will be random, and his weirdboy will cause all sorts of laughs, the SW player is new, and he will enjoy his time without feeling like he will never get a chance to win because we crushed him, and I will play Chaos, and do something silly like take mostly bikes, just to be the Anti White Scars, because no one will see it coming until pull the models out (which I am glueing right now)
If we played all out, trying to win no matter what, no being friendly, and wanting to make someone look like a joke by crushing them...then no one has fun, the beer and brawts are wasted, and no one will want to sit around and have a good time away from the wives and such.
I do not get paid to win, I wont get cut if I lose to many times, and I have a stock pile of minis that will gather dust if I dont pull them out for laughs. Really, if this was all about win win win, I would not have a SoB in school girl skirt.
It's a game, games are to be fun. I don't play Munchkin looking to win, and I dont play 40K looking to win. I want to have fun, laugh, and have everyone with me enjoy their time. It's why I have a couple of Vs decks, and YuGiOh decks. One for tournies, and others for laughs or just for fluff. There is a time to win, a time to teach new players, a time to play test odd things. If winning is all that matters, then you are putting to much thought into this., it's just a game. It's like going into a game of Vampie the Requiem and looking to win (cause there is no winner or loser) And at the end of the game, you want the person to come back and play again, you want to share stories of bad rolls, and a beer, and go to GenCon and find the girls in the 40K Cosplay. And if someone so wants to prove they are better than me at 40K, we can always try Battlefleet Gothic (40K with ships) or we can play Necromonda or Blood Bowl or something.
This is why i miss the old core book with like 20 different types of missions, where you never knew if your army would be a good fit for it or not.

For me, the Journey is a lot more fun than the Destination. Everyone wants to win, but for me, there is no reason to play, if I'm going to have a terrible game, just for a win. Except in tournies, when I fully expect it.


I have Tourny lists, and I have casual lists. I have large enough armies, that I can field almost any build I want. I generally bring at least two lists, when I show up to play. If the person wants to play my tough as nails list, then I use that. If he doesn't, I use my more fun list.

I like to play different builds too. I have all these neat models, so I like to throw them on the table sometime.


I do agree with the point, about you should be going to GT's. If you have such a large win record, then it's clear you need more challenging opponents. Large GTs are where you are going to find the higher skill cap generally.

I'm sure some serious WoW players can empathize with me on this. I used to top damage charts, I was one of the top players on my server, and I would optimize every piece of gear, gem, and enchantment on myself. I had to spend hours a week just making sure I remained competitive and at the top. I loved it. I was better than everyone. I looked down on people that would take cool looking items with inferior stats, or people who would do the fun raids "wasting their time" as I did endgame content. I was a god in my mind. I was great at the game, and I was having a blast. I quit when the game felt like a job. I realized what I was doing wasn't fun, it was work. I was no longer playing; I was competing.

Zee, you no longer are playing with toys against another guy/girl playing with toys. You're manipulating numbers to beat other people at your chosen medium. You use the word 'fun' but you're looking for the word 'fulfullment'. You find your fulfillment in winning, and that is fine, but don't mistake it for fun. I doubt you ever laugh at a mistake or enjoy the serendipity of a silly unit doing something equally silly, because that would not be optimized. And that's fine. You are in the game to win, and to seek fulfillment in beating people.

What I'm bothered by is your illusion of skill. No need to respond to this, because I'm sure it'll be an angry one, but there is nothing skillful about rolling over a player with an optimized list. Beating Tau with an optimized BA list is not skill. Beating an optimized BA list with Footguard is skill. You are a strong listbuilder (allegedly). This only says volumes about your lack of confidence as a 40k general.

As I said, your stance is fine, and to be expected at any game, but understand the dissent you face when you post on a forum rife with people that play for fluff, fun, and the interesting, matched games this hobby is full of.

I like to build fluffy lists, or just lists based on what I think looks cool.

I would agree with other peoples sentiments, 2 lists of similar power playing each other is more fun than just face rolling someone.

I like having fun playing this game.

In my opinion, if you play to win and just to win and have no intreast in this game other than curb stomping other players I would honestly never wish to play you. I can imagine people like that would never enjoy the game, there's no fun, you must win and dominate everyone in your path, spam and use every dirty trick possible to crush the other players, the fun is replaced with a goal that will never be fun.

I learned with CCGs, RPGs, and Mini games, play so everyone has fun, so the girls watching will want to join in too. Heck, we got three very pretty girls to join in with us now, mostly to paint and watch and because they like the backstory, but still. Play to include everyone in having a good time, and more people will join you, and you can have those "Win no matter what" days with them to play test someone, the rest of the time, it's beer and laughs.

So, I'm also a play-to-win kind of guy. I actually think it's fun to have a well-honed precision list and play it at my best, and when everything works right, I get a smooth victory exactly the way I want it. As they say, "isn't it great when a plan comes together?"

Of course, it's even more rewarding when my opponent also takes things seriously, and you can really appreciate the few subtleties that 40k offers. There's a lot of satisfaction to be not only your personal best, but good at something in general, especially when you put a lot of thought and effort into it.

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

Here's the point of departure, though. At some point, one of two things will happen. On the one hand, you will get better than everybody you know, and will trash them regularly. Winning is fun, but winning cheap, easy victories over and over again gets boring, fast. Plus, the winning doesn't feel as good if you're not doing it against someone who has a reasonable chance of beating you. The victory itself is cheap, and unsatisfying.

Probably the best way to handle this is to handicap yourself. If there can't be a real chance of your opponents beating you on your opponent's end, there is always something you can do about this on your end. Taking worse elements and forging them into a smoothly running machine that still works properly and still wins games is as much of a point of pride as winning with netlists, if not so much more so. Hearing people trash talk a unit and then beating them with a list built around that unit is a sign of a better player than someone who just goes with the flow. Plus, you once again get the challenge of real games and if you lose, well so what, you weren't even playing with your "best" units. If you need a few cleansing wins, you can always just take away the handicap, but once you start winning with the handicap, it just makes the winning that much sweeter.

The second main point of departure comes from the game mechanics itself. The closer in power level your list is to your opponents, and the closer in skill level you are to your opponents, the less that those things matter to the outcome of a game, and the more that uncontrolled variables do instead. Put another way, once you and everybody around you starts fielding high-power lists (which the internet has made easy), and starts playing them competently (which comes after not too long, 40k is a pretty easy game to develop a basic mastery of), the more that the results of your game start to boil down to things like luck. It doesn't take long at higher skill levels before 40k games start becoming a game of seeing who is going to roll poorly at that critical moment first, and then have no way to regain their momentum.

Once your victories pass beyond the point of variables you can control to the point of variables you can't, this also cheapens victory, as you get to a point where you earn the win less than you win it by chance. Unfortunately, there simply is no escaping this one, so long as 40k is a game where the outcome of any given event is determined by dice. Either you go play some game that has no random element, like football or chess, or else you need to develop some other aesthetic to keep in the game. For the sake of argument, let's say that this other aesthetic, whatever it may be to you, is called "fun". In that case, you have to move on to "playing for fun", or else you get sucked into an insane world of endless frustration where you and your opponent's perfect, well-oiled, fine-tuned list and strategy is in a constant state of getting ruined by poor die rolls. Having been there, I can tell you that that is pretty much the opposite of fun, by any sane definition.

So, to get back to Kaldor's original point. Either you play against worse people and stomp them, or you play against good people, and have everything come down to luck. Sooner or later, one or both of these things will happen, and you'll wind up irrevocably bored. When this happens, either you quit 40k, or you enhance your 40k experience to being something other than proving your skill, which by this time you will doubtlessly have done countless times. When you decide to make the inevitable necessary transition from pure play to win, you wind up playing for fun.

In any other game (chess, soccer, magic, poker, whatever), if person A did everything possible without breaking game or social rules and person B didn't, usually no one is surprised about person A winning against person B, and person A will get praised for being a good player.

In the huge Warhammer community if person A did everything possible without breaking game or social rules and person B didn't, person A is a jerk if he beats person B. Not only a jerk, but a WAAC person, TFG, or worse. And, of course, he is not having fun, hates all other aspects of the game and generally didn't get the point of WH40k.
Waring: Hyperbole

"Thou shalt not win" is deeply rooted in many players minds, and realistically no discussion or even any thread ever will change anything about it.
It boils down to people complaining about other people caring about winning. But if the first group doesn't care about winning, why are they complaining in the first place?

Bottom line: Every one likes winning. Some people just don't want do sacrifice their favorite models, fluff or even their entire army to do so. This is perfectly reasonable, but don't expect to win as often as somebody who made those sacrifices. There is nothing unfair about this.

This does not give competitive players a free pass to steam-roll new and bad players. That's a social rule you have to respect: Don't pick on the weaker ones.
Even if you brought your dead 'ard tournament list and you are facing that kid with the random assortment of red marines, go easy on him. Have your HQ face off with mephiston, losen up your formation, or simply not deny his flank when deploying, you get the idea. Even when he still loses, he can tell his buddies that mephiston took down the warboss/captain/autarch in an epic fight.

Because not everyone's as manly as you, obviously.
I mean why bother experimenting to find out what's powerful when you could just go for the same thing every time?

I get the distinct vibe that you want to be the biggest fish in the little fishbowl, and not want to grow out into anything that ISN'T your fishbowl, zee.

And I appreciate that there is a comfort of sorts in sticking with it,but you get bored in a hurry and frankly, your generalship stagnates. Like a lot of other folks have said, you've boiled the game down to mathhammer and obsessing over the meta-lists. I also appreciate that there is value in pushing a game to its limit and min-maxing the hell out of something, but in the end, it isn't fulfilling. And you certainly don't get any better at the game by sticking to it.

Right now, you come across as the WAAC guy who hides away, complaining of "mirror matches" and other convenient covers for not playing something that could beat your list. There are plenty of guys like that in my FLGS and GW stores, and lemme tell yea, they are the WORST people to play against. Win or lose, they aren't going to be happy, and I (as an opponent) are not going to be happy. That's 2-3 hours wasted in a game where I'm not being happy, a guaranteed way to ensure you aren't making friends and growing.

As a side-note, I do have one part of playing against WAAC folks that does make me happy, and that is when my unconventional DE lists (disintegrator ravagers and mandrakes, among much else) cause their GKs to panic. It's the psychology game, and you can't numbercrunch it.

This does not give competitive players a free pass to steam-roll new and bad players. That's a social rule you have to respect: Don't pick on the weaker ones.
Even if you brought your dead 'ard tournament list and you are facing that kid with the random assortment of red marines, go easy on him. Have your HQ face off with mephiston, losen up your formation, or simply not deny his flank when deploying, you get the idea. Even when he still loses, he can tell his buddies that mephiston took down the warboss/captain/autarch in an epic fight.

I'd agree with this for the most part with one addon.
Make sure to try and document what the "weaker" player did wrong in the game - either during or after it.
There is no point imho in him walking away with good memories of his HQ thumping yours if they havent learned anything of tactical value or gained some tips.
One as the "stronger" player should be helping out the new guys/"weaker" players with advice and commentary (nicely of course) so they can improve and learn too.

Making the game just fun for them, whilst important, should be balanced with helping them to learn.

We all play this game for fun and we all find fun in different things. Doesn't matter if it's from tabling your opponent, playing a fluffy list or just trying out experimental lists.

As long as you don't prevent others having their fun then there's no issue.

Now can we resume normal service and moan about Ward, OP GK's or discussing a kids cartoon I've never seen

Ailaros wrote:So, I'm also a play-to-win kind of guy. I actually think it's fun to have a well-honed precision list and play it at my best, and when everything works right, I get a smooth victory exactly the way I want it. As they say, "isn't it great when a plan comes together?"

Of course, it's even more rewarding when my opponent also takes things seriously, and you can really appreciate the few subtleties that 40k offers. There's a lot of satisfaction to be not only your personal best, but good at something in general, especially when you put a lot of thought and effort into it.

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

Here's the point of departure, though. At some point, one of two things will happen. On the one hand, you will get better than everybody you know, and will trash them regularly. Winning is fun, but winning cheap, easy victories over and over again gets boring, fast. Plus, the winning doesn't feel as good if you're not doing it against someone who has a reasonable chance of beating you. The victory itself is cheap, and unsatisfying.

Probably the best way to handle this is to handicap yourself. If there can't be a real chance of your opponents beating you on your opponent's end, there is always something you can do about this on your end. Taking worse elements and forging them into a smoothly running machine that still works properly and still wins games is as much of a point of pride as winning with netlists, if not so much more so. Hearing people trash talk a unit and then beating them with a list built around that unit is a sign of a better player than someone who just goes with the flow. Plus, you once again get the challenge of real games and if you lose, well so what, you weren't even playing with your "best" units. If you need a few cleansing wins, you can always just take away the handicap, but once you start winning with the handicap, it just makes the winning that much sweeter.

The second main point of departure comes from the game mechanics itself. The closer in power level your list is to your opponents, and the closer in skill level you are to your opponents, the less that those things matter to the outcome of a game, and the more that uncontrolled variables do instead. Put another way, once you and everybody around you starts fielding high-power lists (which the internet has made easy), and starts playing them competently (which comes after not too long, 40k is a pretty easy game to develop a basic mastery of), the more that the results of your game start to boil down to things like luck. It doesn't take long at higher skill levels before 40k games start becoming a game of seeing who is going to roll poorly at that critical moment first, and then have no way to regain their momentum.

Once your victories pass beyond the point of variables you can control to the point of variables you can't, this also cheapens victory, as you get to a point where you earn the win less than you win it by chance. Unfortunately, there simply is no escaping this one, so long as 40k is a game where the outcome of any given event is determined by dice. Either you go play some game that has no random element, like football or chess, or else you need to develop some other aesthetic to keep in the game. For the sake of argument, let's say that this other aesthetic, whatever it may be to you, is called "fun". In that case, you have to move on to "playing for fun", or else you get sucked into an insane world of endless frustration where you and your opponent's perfect, well-oiled, fine-tuned list and strategy is in a constant state of getting ruined by poor die rolls. Having been there, I can tell you that that is pretty much the opposite of fun, by any sane definition.

So, to get back to Kaldor's original point. Either you play against worse people and stomp them, or you play against good people, and have everything come down to luck. Sooner or later, one or both of these things will happen, and you'll wind up irrevocably bored. When this happens, either you quit 40k, or you enhance your 40k experience to being something other than proving your skill, which by this time you will doubtlessly have done countless times. When you decide to make the inevitable necessary transition from pure play to win, you wind up playing for fun.

Excellent post.

In summary play a weak codex as best you can and go have a blast =]

True story. i sold my 1750 sallies army which had no losses against it. because i hated wining. and i took up an all reserve nids list because its fun. 60 devil gaunts in spods, 4 zoes in 2 groups in a spod, a doom in a spod a flyrant, a swarmlord with 2 guard in a spod, and dun dun dunnnnnn outflanking genestealers. and i loooove the idea and fun of the army..... its almost a narrative army. they are the first wave of The Great Devourer. and funny side note. i have more than 60 devourer guns lol in the list. i shall call my list.... The Beginning of the end... lol

Xca|iber's post on page 2 had all the truth in it.
Odds are people won't read it because "omg wall of text" or disagree because it takes... a balanced and reasonable approach *gasp* .

@OP : imho it's a bit silly to ask a question only to outright discard the answers.

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

That's completely the point, as Xca|iber made it clear.

zeekill wrote:1) Fluffy lists aside.

Uh, okay, notwithstanding the fact that it's a common "fun" approach among casual players...

On an unrelated note...

zeekill wrote:The GK codex is so broken that it skewed the entire metagame.

So much for credibility as a competition-driven player.

I despise the fluff nazi, the comp cultist and the casual gaming mafia types. Fun Police are the worst.

The one thing I hate more is the poser jock. The guy who tears up his local scene, talks a big game, but is too scared to go out to real tournies and actually challenge themselves. You are not a competitive player. Competitive players don't shrink from a difficult matchup or make excuses, nor do they wave their W/L ratio around to validate themselves. They go out and compete and revel in it, win or lose. Stick to your local tournies, keep clubbing seals and enjoy your massively inflated ego. You are nothing.

Be constructive and supportive. If you find yourself going 20-1 in your local scene, try helping them improve. Explain your reasoning, help them play better and build better lists. You're only as strong as your competition. Dumb down your army, meet them on their level and help them work their way up.

Hell, even professional athletes play friendly games. Ever heard of exhibition matches? Preseason? Getting in some light practice or fooling around with uncommon or quirky builds can be a great change of pace and can improve your understanding of the game as a whole.

Also, the fact that you think GK are OP or auto-win against DE speaks volumes. You've got a long way to go, champ.