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.

Yodhrin wrote:

ITT: WAAC gamers who have deluded themselves into believing that their victories are due to their own superior ability, rather than the often ludicrously unbalanced Warhammer rules. Also ITT: People who think a tabletop wargame published by a company which has an entire division devoted to narrative gaming is equivalent to a pro-sport designed from the ground-up for unrestrained competition.

This This a thousand times this.

The only way Meta netlisting is fun for all is when it is fair for all. The current state of 40k simply is not fair for all players. When people go to tourneys, they are fully aware that the game is stacked against them and choose to compete anyways. In playing in the local store, the poor kid who bought Nids because they looked cool doesn't deserve to have his teeth kicked in simply because of codex creep and the gaming being slanted towards power armor.

People who think every game everywhere must be 'unrestrained competition' are missing the point. There is a time and a place for it and it isn't always 'all the time'. One of the problems is many Netlisters only have a static 1500 point of that army in a specific configuration so they couldn't 'tone down' their list if they tried. This is where I would suggest people sometimes offer to trade armies with people to play outside the idea of 'unrestrained competition' and play to have fun and maybe learn new things.

There are multiple valid ways to play these games and no correct way. Less than 10 years ago, the meta was so unbalanced, the game couldn’t even be played under the current competitive mindset. Just because there has been progress doesn't mean there isn't more distance to go to a fair and balanced meta for all.

Lets grow up a bit and fathom the colossal notion that induviduals might have diffrent opinions and stuff.

OH NO CAN YOU DO THAT? ISN'T THAT AGAINST THE LAW OR SOMETHING?
YOU HAVE TO LIKE WHAT I LIKE OR YOU ARE WRONG!

Jeez, when a group or wargamers cant even peacefully coexist is it a suprise there is war in the world?

Its like the wargaming community are socialy maladjusted or something. (thats irony)

A friendly game for me is not determined at all by the list, it is determined by the player. If I can have some fun, witty banter, and a good time with somebody then It is a friendly game. We shake hands, laugh about the silly things that happen, and congratulate each other on our strengths. A non friendly game is usually quiet, serious and ends up with somebody being mad.

I can usually tell what type of game is by the following interaction, both a response after I destroyed their first tank.

(Friendly game against Cheese Angels, both competitive lists. Lost in Kill Points) "Slick shot bro! Congrats on your first KP(we fist pound)"

(Not so friendly game against Mech IG, semi comp lists. Tabled the guy) "Oh, so it is going to be one of THOSE games... " And proceeded to complain about how he always loses his manticore for the next 5 minutes.

Dr. Serling wrote:A friendly game for me is not determined at all by the list, it is determined by the player. If I can have some fun, witty banter, and a good time with somebody then It is a friendly game. We shake hands, laugh about the silly things that happen, and congratulate each other on our strengths. A non friendly game is usually quiet, serious and ends up with somebody being mad.

I really like this observation. Far too often I've been guilty of using the term "friendly" game to mean non-competitive. It wouldn't be my kind of game, but it must be said that two players can have a perfectly friendly game with WAAC, tooled'up, web lists and if they're laid back about it, they could even call the game casual.

Perhaps it would be best for us to define the kind of list we want to play - "Fluffy" or "Competitive", "Optimized" or "non-optimized", etc, etc - and use terms like friendly, or casual to describe the demeanor of the player.

darefsky wrote:Wow, what timing for this post.

I went to my FLGS yesterday looking for a game. Wound up playing a guy who was playing his 3rd game ever.

I took a very soft 1850 eldar list so he could get more experience with his necrons (they were by no means optimized).

I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.

If I had used my tournament list it wouldn't have been fun for anyone (I don't bask in the glow of stomping n00bs into the ground)

Excellent reply to the OP.

I commend all those who take this route to help get new players into this hobby.

Dr. Serling wrote:A friendly game for me is not determined at all by the list, it is determined by the player. If I can have some fun, witty banter, and a good time with somebody then It is a friendly game. We shake hands, laugh about the silly things that happen, and congratulate each other on our strengths. A non friendly game is usually quiet, serious and ends up with somebody being mad.

QFT.

I usually will even ask someone if they're looking for a tough list, or if they'd like to see something crazy. (Space Wolves tourney list being the former; Deathmark & C'Tan lists the latter)

Both have some bite to them, but the former is a standard spamalot net list (except I use Dreads) whereas the latter really just wins because it will repeatedly sucker punch the opponent when, where & with what they wouldn't expect.

Perhaps it would be best for us to define the kind of list we want to play - "Fluffy" or "Competitive", "Optimized" or "non-optimized", etc, etc - and use terms like friendly, or casual to describe the demeanor of the player.

Yes, absolutely. Otherwise one is saying that anyone running a competitive list isn't being friendly which is both absurd and rather insulting.

I'm not going to lie. I have on one occasion stomped a guy who had no idea what he was doing to the ground. Normally however I try to play to let everyone have fun rather then for me to win. Some of my favorite matches have been ones where I lost but had a good time the whole game. Also you should always play to win but well doing that if the other person needs help with his skills or army you shouldn't always exploit his every weakness to the point where the game no longer becomes fun for him. For tourneys where there is stuff on the line have at it. But for casual games why risk hurt feelings by being a jerk. If you know the other guy will have no chance of beating you pro spam list and you can play another option where both of you will have a chance to win why not use it and let everyone have a good time.

Even in a tourney you can be pleasant about it -- congratulate the enemy on good tactics or a lucky shot, all that stuff. Talk about how you think the game's going, not just in a kind of "I will crush you" way.

I'd just make a list that I wanted to play. If it's a newbie then it's all part of the learning curve. Help them out throughout the game to give them a better chance. Give them tactical advice or advice on what you'd do to their list. If you let them win easily it's only going to be all the more horrible when they come up against WAAC guy and he stomps their asses into the soil.

WaaaaghLord wrote:I'd just make a list that I wanted to play. If it's a newbie then it's all part of the learning curve. Help them out throughout the game to give them a better chance. Give them tactical advice or advice on what you'd do to their list. If you let them win easily it's only going to be all the more horrible when they come up against WAAC guy and he stomps their asses into the soil.

That's very true, if you give them the win and they don't know how to earn it, the only person they can beat is whoever let's them.

As a relatively new player (January), who loses on a consistent basis, I would rather face the "tough" list. I am trying to learn how to make a list, how to play with what I already have, what I need to do to get better, and where my tactical weaknesses are. I have had one opponent who rather helpfully put little toothpick flags with his units with a 1-10 scale of their threat level to me.

I have also faced the hated "rich teen" with the ultra-cheddar sooper spam interned BA list, and I will never play that kid again. Using an AoBR Dread as a counts as Furioso Liberian and sending psychic lance shots at my Land Raider Crusader while ignoring everything else, then calling me lucky and blaming the dice when I end up holding 3 out of 4 objectives when the game ends, then telling your friend "I let him win 'cuz he's new" seconds before I find out that most of your kills came from misinterpreting (or possibly misrepresenting) special rules... Never again

Any decent person whose playing someone new should know not to bring the CHAMPIONSHIP LIST 5000!
If you do, then you are local TFG

To the OP:
The way I look at it, if you goto a LFGS on an off night you bring 2 lists if you are a GT or Tournment player. You bring your standard tournment list, and you bring something toned down to try out. Frankly 1 off games do not matter, you should approach it that way. Its a time to focus on solid tactical play. Focus on objectives of the game. What deployment presents a strong opportunity. What level of play is my opponent? Will this be enjoyable for both of us? What are positives of units I do not have an opportunity to use frequently?

Going to a tournment, you should really expect to run into some nasty stuff if you've been to one before. When I'm in a shop and I hear a "hey i'm going to my first event!" I usually walk over, and take 5-10 minutes to talk to the person about expectations, to be preparred to get caught in the open, and take it all in. Similarly those experienced guys, they may not have that huge collections of minatures. They may not be able to tone down armies. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as they tell their opponents, and the opponent is prepared to see that nasty tournment list.

The only time I cringe, is watching a TFG enjoy stomping a new guy, or any player who tricks people into tournment games when they are not ready or have a suitable list.

I'm going to highlight and incident from GW Voorhees. I took a year off 40K to focus on Warmachine. A lot of guys in the area know me by sight as a WFB / WMHD player. They were becoming acustomed to seeing me at 40K events. I was asked to play a 1 off game one night. I asked the person what they run, introduced myself, referenced getting back into 40k, but knowing the drill on lists. They mentioned they would like to play a "friends giggle game."

I was both impressed and happy. I brought out a balanced, Chaos SM list. No lash princes, no obliterators, no fully mechanized. Focusing on really learning the ins / outs on rules and sceniarios. Opponents plunks down Spammed Long Fang Missles, Podded Hunters.

I pause and ask about his list, he claims its a friendly list and not that hard. I polite reference he has a net / strong list, he refutes, and I call his bluff. He says he really doesn't have anything else. Yep, he crap kicks my army. Zero fun. TFG's the game. Berating me for most of the game. EDIT: why did I play? I sometimes work night shifts... I really have to schedule to try to goto those tournments I love, so when I get a off night to game, i'd rather roll dice then not.

I asked what's up after the game. Point out that yep, i've won GT's in the past, I knew his list was a power list and that's ok. But why would he do that. He remarks "everything is a tournment game." I offer a little insight, that he could lead with that, and that sportsmanship is important because you can be scored on it. He sights "its ok to get a zero in sports."

That's the attitude I don't want people confronted with if people are learning. I want people to learn to play. If you want a tournment game, go for it. Be honest with your opponent in 1 off games. People can get royally spanked, but they can have a fabulous game doing it. I don't ever want anyone walking away with the "waste of time" feeling.

On a side note: happy ending, I have crap kicked said player in every tournment game since at local events. I also refuse to play him in 1 off games, citing he lost a opponent. Every time he asks me to play I reference when he learns to be honest with opponents, and when I witness him being a decent sportsman. I will give him a 2nd chance.

Wow what a great thread! I recently had a "friendly" game that caused me lots of irk.... lots of irk. This game really pissed me off. it was 3 v 2 and I was tau with another tau player and an IG player. We planned this game and knew what each others army was. The other team was DE and GK. The GK player purposly took a plasma syphon vs tau. A bigger f** you there is not. He also took a callidus assain and claimed ID vs my broadsides, when ID vs neural shredder is based on LD therefore ID only happens on LD 4. Anyway I was furious and I almost stopped playing. I refuse to play those 2 again. Both cheated claiming they "forgot" to roll for reserves which really affected the outcome of the game. The GK player cheated with cover save rules, claiming cover on a dread that was standing in a lawn. I dont have tau anymore, but not because of this, but I have Krieg now. We have, without question, the most powerful weapon in the entire non apoc 40k game, the Hades Breaching Drill, of which I have 3. For those who dont know its S10 AP1 melta large blast with no center of blast(says in the rule) that always hits on the vehicles side armor that comes in via deep strike. It goes in an engineer squad and it costs 50 points. I would never EVER take them in a friendly game because its a total dick move, if I wanted to be a dick I could. But I choose not to run spam lists in friendly games because they are just the, they're friendly.

darefsky wrote:Wow, what timing for this post.

I went to my FLGS yesterday looking for a game. Wound up playing a guy who was playing his 3rd game ever.

I took a very soft 1850 eldar list so he could get more experience with his necrons (they were by no means optimized).

I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.

If I had used my tournament list it wouldn't have been fun for anyone (I don't bask in the glow of stomping n00bs into the ground)

I honestly find that I end up teaching new players (and existing players) things more so that I play and I end up getting more enjoyment out of it. I enjoy playing as much as the next guy but it seems no matter what I field something is "cheese" even if I am running Codex: Marines. I've never heard a new player tell me that teaching him to play was cheese though I have had some players I was teaching tactics to possibly consider my suggestions cheese, but knowing is half the battle. (One of the major things I end up really teaching people about is space marines/space marine tactics, I've spent a load of time on Drop Pod/disembark combat squads stuff).

I don't know how I feel about this...


If you're going to offer up different types of lists, though, definitely advertise them as "fluffy" vs. "tournament-style", because "hard" vs. "soft/easy" is pretty condescending even if it's true.

njpc wrote:To the OP:


I was both impressed and happy. I brought out a balanced, Chaos SM list. No lash princes, no obliterators, no fully mechanized. Focusing on really learning the ins / outs on rules and sceniarios. Opponents plunks down Spammed Long Fang Missles, Podded Hunters.

I pause and ask about his list, he claims its a friendly list and not that hard. I polite reference he has a net / strong list, he refutes, and I call his bluff. He says he really doesn't have anything else. Yep, he crap kicks my army. Zero fun. TFG's the game. Berating me for most of the game. EDIT: why did I play? I sometimes work night shifts... I really have to schedule to try to goto those tournments I love, so when I get a off night to game, i'd rather roll dice then not.

I asked what's up after the game. Point out that yep, i've won GT's in the past, I knew his list was a power list and that's ok. But why would he do that. He remarks "everything is a tournment game." I offer a little insight, that he could lead with that, and that sportsmanship is important because you can be scored on it. He sights "its ok to get a zero in sports."

That's the attitude I don't want people confronted with if people are learning. I want people to learn to play. If you want a tournment game, go for it. Be honest with your opponent in 1 off games. People can get royally spanked, but they can have a fabulous game doing it. I don't ever want anyone walking away with the "waste of time" feeling.

On a side note: happy ending, I have crap kicked said player in every tournment game since at local events. I also refuse to play him in 1 off games, citing he lost a opponent. Every time he asks me to play I reference when he learns to be honest with opponents, and when I witness him being a decent sportsman. I will give him a 2nd chance.

This is very refreshing to see, this proves that not every player is a WAAC player who really isnt fun to play with. As mentioned above, whats the point of playing? I really dont like WAAC players who are on all the time

Ultra Grey wrote:

darefsky wrote:I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.

You, sir, are a gentleman. You exemplify what the hobby needs more of.

Ditto.

Most of the guys I play with know I go to alot of tournies so they bring their A game to the table.

"One of the problems is many Netlisters only have a static 1500 point of that army in a specific configuration so they couldn't 'tone down' their list if they tried."

I think this is the biggest difference to me... I like my games varied, and will play your tourney list in a casual game, but if you can't/won't/don't change it up every now and again, it gets super boring.

This game is such a niche community, mostly of social outcasts, that it's honestly hard to get a regular group of guys for consistant games (at least in the cities I have lived in). Anyone who actually cares about the outcome of a non-tournament game is instantly flagged as an outcast IMO, as Warhammer is a analog relic of digital rts...

It's going the way of the samurai, so you can either uphold the code and have some honorable combat, or you can claim "tactical superiority" in a game 100,000 (maybe?) people across globe compete in, while Online gaming has millions on at a time.

I guess sometimes you have to say, "Whats the point?" if winning casual games of warhammer is all someone has going for them then that's kinda sad. Quite simply, every warhammer game is a meaningless affair that will be forgotten in a matter of weeks or months, and in no way compairs to real life (such as social interaction, with your opponents perhaps) the only real thing that lasts are narratives and friendships formed while playing...

All from a 15 year vets pov

treadhead1944 wrote:
I have also faced the hated "rich teen" with the ultra-cheddar sooper spam interned BA list, and I will never play that kid again. Using an AoBR Dread as a counts as Furioso Liberian and sending psychic lance shots at my Land Raider Crusader while ignoring everything else, then calling me lucky and blaming the dice when I end up holding 3 out of 4 objectives when the game ends, then telling your friend "I let him win 'cuz he's new" seconds before I find out that most of your kills came from misinterpreting (or possibly misrepresenting) special rules... Never again

If you read my post that is the kid I ROFLSTOMPED, yea, I hate him to.

Except that in tearing me apart here, you're doing the exact thing you're griping about: you're complaining about someone with a differing opinion on a bleeding game. For the record, I am by no means a WAAC player. My enjoyment comes from improving and doing well. I get enjoyment just from being able to play, but I'd rather not be that "Oh well, at least I tried" guy every single time. When I win, I like to know what I did better than last time. That's why I enjoy competitive play, even between friends. Especially between friends. As long as you're not spiteful or resentful people, you can have a no holds barred kind of game and come out of it with all the enjoyment you could get from a match.

I warn people I play with that I don't pull punches. Does that mean I'm a WAAC kind of guy? No, I don't seek out newbies to thrash them. I do not cheat, I answer openly and readily when asked questions about my list and units, and allow people to see both list and codex when asked for. I'd go so far as to say that a lot of people get a stronger drive to improve and play when matched against someone who has some experience under their belt. As long as the "stronger" player is willing to explain their actions, as they should be, you can learn a lot about tactics, decisiveness and competitive play. This is how I got better, and how I decided I may be at a point where I can go to Warmasters this year with a chance at winning a few matches. If I don't win, however, I know I'm good enough to put up a good fight and know neither player at the table is going to softball it.

But again, I warn people. No spammy lists on my part, typically unconventional lists... But I play the game in the way I enjoy, and that's as a competition. If they don't want to play with someone like that, it's not like I have a gun to their head making them.

EDIT - I feel I should add that though I don't think "pro sports" have any value beyond the merit of exercise, they're also a game. You can't really draw much of a line between the two as far as I'm concerned, but again, that could be because I think it's ridiculous that people are being paid to play a game in the first place.

Im currently sat on a quandary myself on this topic.

My good mate Albatross and I play each other every few months, he plays Orks, and the problem seems to me that there are only two or three ways to run them competitively, so its either get smashed or play a good list. Despite the fact he runs a pretty awesome list (everyone in a trukk, couple of battlewagons, big boy squads, all nobz have PKs, Mek with a KFF/Warboss) I play Vanilla and don't wish to play a cheese list against him. I play a fluffy list, ten man tac squads, some scouts, some devastators, gak like that. Not optimised.

Anyway, after struggling against him one weekend and losing all my games due to having only a half decent amount of firepower and him having the infernal cover saves. (Plus a small board, he is always assaulting me on turn two regardless) I added a drop pod with ten sternguard in. 8 combi meltas.

Drop it in, combat squad them, always take down two vehicles, or fry some orks, he ends up dealing with them instead of driving at me 18" on turn one, I get an extra turn of shooting, and beat him all weekend.

But, it reeks of cheese doesnt it? So.. I dropped it from the list and went back to the drawing board.

So, this weekend gone I went back down, took a ten man tac, scouts in a LSS, ten devastators, a rifleman dread, some termies..

And got trounced all weekend again. :(

So, I don't play SW or GK or BA, I literally don't have the firepower to make sure I've only got 30 Orks instead of 70 assaulting me on turn two.

Do I go back to taking the cheesepod, or keep trying to think of ingenious ways to beat him with none optimal gak like Devastators and my beloved Thunderfire Cannon?

Orks seem to be either really awesome or really gakky, so I can understand him playing a list that would look ok in a tournament but I don't want to look like a beardy.

What would you lot do?

A drop pod to bugger up an opponents plans is perfectly fluffy for vanilla marines.

Drop the number of melta shots? Perhaps use a deepstriking assault squad to meltabomb one vehicle and melta gun the other? Or drop a dreadnought with MM and flamer and see what that does. Perhaps drop a devastator squad with 4 HB's in to put some behind the lines dakka on him.

Or you could use JP assault squads with melta bombs to knock out a couple vehicles then go on a crazy ass rampage for gaks and giggles. I'd go this route personally as it's loads more fun. If you're actually playing to win you may want to set up some crossfires with HB's or AC's (lots of shots) to knock down hordes. A 4xHB dev squad puts out a lot of shots, and with a good position with some sort of screening / interception unit, they can be murderous against horde armies (nids, orks, IG).

As other people have said you can have a friendly game well still playing to win. It just requires that both side remember something really important. THAT THIS IS A GAME. Sure it might hurt when nothing you do works or you big tanks all die turn one but that will happen. Winning after that is something to brag about. beating foot slogging orks with guard flamer spam isnt.

ivangterrace wrote:I always wanted to post about this, so I figure my first post past 300 for me should be about the fine line we kinda sorta walk in friendly games.

I'll start with an example. I have mean space wolves lists with 3 long fang squads w/ 4 missiles each and all three squads have a las/plas razorback, and the rest of the army is generally heavily mechanized with meltahunter squads. But I don't play those lists in friendly play because idk if I'm playing a fluffbunny, a newbie, or a tournament player.

Why? I don't want to make people angry. Most people don't like playing against spammy lists, I don't mind, but I know most people do.

So I tone my lists down and put in my cool looking wolf guard terminators with wolf claws and other guys with cool looking poses.

But, if I do that, I leave myself to getting stomped by the guy who is playing for the win, using the tourney list, the guy who doesn't care, or doesn't realize a lot of people get angrypants over that style of listbuilding.

My question is, do you walk the fine line of trying to make a list that isn't overkill against "for fun" players but doesn't roll over to "for the win" players? Do you even think about this weird social contract? Do you think it even exists?

I've found that "friendly" lists or a "friendly" can very, very quickly turn into competitive. What happened in my group was - I told people to build lists for fun, take units/models/characters they considered to be fun, etc. etc. and then one guy decided "fun" was beating everyone. It quickly escalated into a very competitive deal with everyone taking the strongest unit/worst spam. It's a slippery slope.

Here's a simple solution that keeps you from having to make hard choices about sportsmanship or having to bring two lists:

Just play two games instead of one, and switch armies after the first game. Did'ja stomp 'em into the ground the first game? Well, here's your chance to find out whether it was the army list that did it or YOU! Did you get your ass handed to you? Well, here's your chance to give the other fellow a taste of his own medicine!

As long as you're careful with the other fellow's miniatures, there shouldn't be any problems. Plus, it gives you an opportunity to try different armies and different tactics!

@ The OP.
I couldnt agree more that there is a social contract when you game with someone. If you know they are a newb, or just one of those players who for whatever reason fields a list that is high on units that are cool units that are filled with fluff but lack any real competitive synergy, then fielding a list that is designed primarily for fun sake is where its at. Then when you win a game its more fullfilling for you as the winner, and your foe has a better time playing against you.

Now. with that said. I know who my foes are when i go to the shop. I usually have three lists sticky noted into the back of my dex. One uber-fluffy, zero synergy list to play against newbs and those foes who just like a cinematic game, one list that is pretty middle of the road, and one uber cheese list. I usually end up playing the middle of the road list, but every now and then i pull the nasty list out when i know i am facing someone who has a cheese penchant. This ensures that no matter what the level of competition is fair, fun and balanced.

I normally have fun even when being stomped, as my opponents at both stores I play at are great guys. However, I do think that there are some lists that are "unfriendly" just because they are not fun to play against, which for me seems to only be Long Fang spam with infinite missile launchers. Though the guy I was playing was a cool guy and helped me with my list afterwards.

Just don't be TFG and bring a list that unless you get diced your opponent will get roflstomped by you in a non-tourney or non-tourney practice game unless you legitimately don't have any other models-then be honest and tell them that you don't have anything else if they get pissed.

For me it gose from "fair game, you build a list to win" to unsporting list building when people start taloring without discussing it. If you bring a good tourniment list, fine, thats a good list and what the game is about, but when I see someone pull out a bunch of flamers and pie plates when they play my ork horde when half an hour ago the force was full of melta and laz playing against an mecanized MEQ, that starts to upset me.

In my opinion as long as lists are made "in the dark" it is fine.

You should also avoid questionable rules interpritations in friendly games (and all games IMO, but not everyone agrees).