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 like to play the most competitive list I can. If someone is obviously overmatched, I will spot them a couple hundred points.

Sometimes I really just wanna be tfg and stomp someone tho

 Peregrine wrote:


This is a reasonable proposal. I'd allow modifying the point limit if I get 100 points for every 1 point they add. Want to take that extra power fist? Cool, I get to bring an extra Shadowsword.

Of course you would. Your army would benefit and you would get to pile abuse on anyone willing to take that deal as "Virtue Signaling" what a CAAC they are.

It would probably be the closest thing to an orgasm you'd ever achieve in a game.

Reading through this thread...wow.

I understand the game is a valuable investment of time for both sides, but is it really so bad to have a little give when it comes to rules, lists and gameplay? If my opponent brings 1505 points to a 1500 games and it's friendly, cool. I really don't care. If it's for a tournament, of course not. It all depends on the attitude. I however don't understand the mentality of pure-blooded WAAC where everything is a debate, a problem or a point of contention. I just don't play with those sorts of people.

Personally I like to run semi-competitive, but I use mostly inlore reasons to explain why more force composition is the way it is. Some things I run because I pretty much have to, others for fun. Just have a good time folks. It's expensive Yahtzee.

Andykp wrote:
That’s what you got from my comment there? This is why power levels are best. Stops any shenanigans. No weasling allowed. U should write an article on list building and maybe I could get as good at it as you one day.

How does PL stop it? The person who begs for extra points is just going to beg to take an extra PL or two so they can fit in an additional unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zuri Prime wrote:
I however don't understand the mentality of pure-blooded WAAC where everything is a debate, a problem or a point of contention.

And yet it's the "casual" players asking to break the point limit, while the competitive players wouldn't even think of asking for extra points. So who is WAAC?

Nature's Minister wrote:
I like to play the most competitive list I can. If someone is obviously overmatched, I will spot them a couple hundred points.

Sometimes I really just wanna be tfg and stomp someone tho

I feel like this is what's starting to happen to me after optimizing my list a bunch. I am becoming tfg. But I'm tfg with a fully painted horde army so at least I can claim that flavor of moral high ground over my grey plastic enemies.

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
That’s what you got from my comment there? This is why power levels are best. Stops any shenanigans. No weasling allowed. U should write an article on list building and maybe I could get as good at it as you one day.

How does PL stop it? The person who begs for extra points is just going to beg to take an extra PL or two so they can fit in an additional unit.

Well, PL only really considers the number and types of models, and not all those tiny little upgrades that would get a person 4 points over. PL also has a tighter number grouping akin to WarmaHordes. 4 PL and WMH points go a very long way while 4 40K Matched Play points not half as much. But hey, when you have a scale of comparing 2000 points to 75 (standard WMH Steamroller list), you're looking at a rather large disparity in proportion.

 Peregrine wrote:
And yet it's the "casual" players asking to break the point limit, while the competitive players wouldn't even think of asking for extra points. So who is WAAC?

Asking for an adjustment is not breaking anything. This is a very false statement.

And WAAC isn't just for competitive, they usually get banned from competitive events.

 Peregrine wrote:

And yet it's the "casual" players asking to break the point limit, while the competitive players wouldn't even think of asking for extra points. So who is WAAC?

No. The competitive players just scoff at you for not taking the most effective choices available.
Like taking regular leman russ over commander leman russ.
Do that around a competitive <removed> and prepare to be shamed for your choices.

Edited by BrookM

ValentineGames wrote:
No. The competitive players just scoff at you for not taking the most effective choices available.
Like taking regular leman russ over commander leman russ.
Do that around a competitive <removed> and prepare to be shamed for your choices.

Edited by BrookM

Well yes, people are going to give you some skepticism if you insist on "I think my tanks are too good, they should only hit on 4s instead of 3s" as a strategy. It's not like there's any meaningful difference aside from their effectiveness at rolling dice, so it isn't a case of putting fluff ahead of winning. It's just bad strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Well, PL only really considers the number and types of models, and not all those tiny little upgrades that would get a person 4 points over. PL also has a tighter number grouping akin to WarmaHordes. 4 PL and WMH points go a very long way while 4 40K Matched Play points not half as much. But hey, when you have a scale of comparing 2000 points to 75 (standard WMH Steamroller list), you're looking at a rather large disparity in proportion.

On the other hand, being 1 point over is easily fixed by removing an upgrade so fewer people are going to ask to take extra points. Fixing a list that is 1 PL over requires replacing an entire unit, which is more difficult and makes it more likely that people will want to break the point limit.

Asking for an adjustment is not breaking anything. This is a very false statement.

It is when the adjustment is "let me take an extra thing that wouldn't be legal otherwise".

And WAAC isn't just for competitive, they usually get banned from competitive events.

And yet the term "WAAC" is constantly used to refer to people who play competitively but entirely within the rules, over things like taking optimized lists that are good at winning games. But we see that the real WAAC behavior is among the "casual" or "narrative" players who have all kinds of rationalizations for why they should be allowed to bend the rules in their favor, in a way that most competitive players would never even consider.

It's amazing how people who are the strongest rules lawyers are also the same dudes that consider the game a dumpster fire and broken, lol. I also suspect the same dudes are entirely in favor for heavy proxying.

WAAC are not cheaters, that's another category. WAAC are dudes that cry like children if they lose a match in local club, they always field super cheesy list even if it involves heavy proxying, keep record of their win/lose ratio, ask to double check every possible rule, look carefully if you move your miniatures without gaining 0,0001'', etc... they're those kind of guys who are probably frustrated in real life and want to compete at any cost on the tables, because that makes them feel better.

Luckily there's none in my area, but I've seen some of them across the years.

Zuri Primes nailed it: it all depends on the attitude, not the motive. Because yes, those +5 extra points are for personal benefit but the list is probably non optimized anyway so that player can't be a WAAC dude, otherwise he'd proxy his miniatures to field a more competitive army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's cheating due to breaking the original army sizes and then asking if it's okay. Cheating with permission is cheating still. It also isn't my fault you can't even build an army in 5 minutes for a particular point limit. Learn to add.

There's no such thing as the original army size as a rule that cannot be broken. The points format isn't a rule. People bring 2000 points because it's the most common format, and people take 2000 lists to a club because they'll likely to have a game against an army of the same size, but there's no rule about that. Some clubs mostly play at 1500, other ones at 1250.

Playing at 2000 points or 2005 doesn't make any difference, there's no rule that impose players to adopt a specific points format over a more unusual one (like 1742 for example), it's not like asking to change real existing rules, aka advocating the ITC format or any other set of house rules. That's cheating with permission.

Defining the points budget is entirely on the players before they actually start the game.

Another thing that annoys me is this abuse of the term competitive. To me it means you actively seek out meaningful and challenging competition, and that you like to win. To other people it seems to mean rigidly adhering to a system, whether you think its actually balanced or not, and that you like to win.

If someone asked to use a few extra points, because it keeps their squads wysiwyg and it helps them reach the game size we want? Heck, if they wanna add a few hundred points because they think their faction is underpowered. My response most of the time? BRING IT ON. That sounds like a challenge!

You saying they can only bring an extra power fist if you can bring an extra shadowsword? Don't pretend your representative of a competitive mindset, you're just rigid.

Just to clarify some things as well:
- I think that tournaments are good for the hobby.
- I think rigidity is good for tournaments, and that going in to them with a WAAC mindset is perfectly fine.
- I think that better balanced matched play only helps to improve narrative/open/casual play, and doesn't ruin it as some people think.
- I love list building and enjoy it as a pre-game game.

And I still think that Slayer's opinion that last minute deviations from match terms are objectively cheating in all scenarios, or peregrine's opinion that its at least poor sportsmanship in all scenarios to be absolutely insane.

The other week I was playing 1000 vs 1000, orks v DG. My friends DG are basically dark imperium + a few extras. He hadn't painted his poxwalkers yet. He could fit all his wysiwyg painted stuff into about 1005 pts. We had lots of options to resolve it.

- He could drop a character or squad. I think by removing a character he could get it to 950ish.
- He could combine his 3 min size plague marine squads into 2 squads of 7 and lose his battalion.
- He could swap a squad of marines for unpainted pox walkers and bring it close.
- We could say, that power fist doesn't exist, and we'll just remember that

All of those things would ultimately be fine, and had I been really strict about it, he would have gone with one of those options. But since I already had a slightly stronger list, and we both like fully painted wysiwyg games and we are both fully grown adults we asked if it was okay to just go with 1005. YES OF COURSE ITS FETHING OKAY. 2 weeks ago his army would have been a completely different cost anyway. This game isn't perfectly balanced!

He was NOT gaming me for advantage. He wanted to get his painted DG on the table for its first 1000 pt game, and I wanted it too. Your complete inability to understand any scenario like this other than for unfair advantage reasons, just feels like a harsh projection of your own mindset.

And if you response to any of this stuff is 'NOT MY PROBLEM', then I've got news for you, you are TFG. It's you.

And to reiterate what some people have said here, few people are saying that rigid adherence to the rules is the wrong way to play. If you have a group of people who are happy doing non-stop strict matched play as practice for tournaments, all the power to you. You've found like minded individuals and you are having fun. But if you can't recognise that 40k is a rich mixture of play styles, with a lot of constraints around what you can do because of the expense and time-required, and don't even UNDERSTAND a need for flexibilty sometimes, then I believe that you are a destructive force within the hobby.

 Blackie wrote:
I also suspect the same dudes are entirely in favor for heavy proxying.

Just want to note that proxying more often benefits casual players, not competitive players. Hardcore tournament players are just going to buy whatever they need because they're committed to the game, if they don't already have it. It's the guy with a $50/month budget and a limited collection that benefits from being able to bring something new without having to buy new models.

WAAC are not cheaters, that's another category. WAAC are dudes that cry like children if they lose a match in local club, they always field super cheesy list even if it involves heavy proxying, keep record of their win/lose ratio, ask to double check every possible rule, look carefully if you move your miniatures without gaining 0,0001'', etc... they're those kind of guys who are probably frustrated in real life and want to compete at any cost on the tables, because that makes them feel better.

Why do you find it necessary to call it "wining at all costs" to follow the rules? As for your attempt at psychology, well, we might as well assume that "casual" player are all the sad losers that have been rejected all of their life and had to watch as the winners stole their girlfriends. Their "casual" attitude is just sour grapes about not being able to win.

Playing at 2000 points or 2005 doesn't make any difference, there's no rule that impose players to adopt a specific points format over a more unusual one (like 1742 for example), it's not like asking to change real existing rules, aka advocating the ITC format or any other set of house rules. That's cheating with permission.

And you continue to ignore that the sole reason for asking for 2005 points instead of 2000 is to modify a 2000 point list to include an extra upgrade that the player wants. There is nothing special about 2005 points, it's just the total they need for that particular game. It isn't the specific number that's cheating, it's the attempt to use the point limit as a strategy to bias the game in their favor instead of a player-neutral way of setting the size of the game.

 Toofast wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The basic problem is a matter of civility. Like any human interaction between two people, you have to come to an agreement on the interaction to have a positive experience. Just because someone says yes doesn't mean you can inflict all of your fetishes on them. Find common ground and begin there, or walk away. No game is better than a bad game.

Civility is how much of a good sport you are, it has nothing to do with list building. If the other person brings a subpar list and has a bad experience because of that, it is not my fault. If someone picks a terrible hero in Dota and loses because of it, not my fault or problem. If someone plays some jank deck or drafts poorly in MtG, not on me to replace my power cards with more lands to help them. If someone lines up in the lane across from me with 100 less hp at the 1/4 mile, I'm not going to short shift. If someone shows up the 3 gun meet with a Glock, and I have a $4k custom shop 1911, I'm not going to shoot left handed.

I'm not sure why people seem to treat Warhammer so much differently than anything else with a winner and a loser. If you refuse to make a decent list and also can't handle losing to good lists, go play D&D. Any game with a winner and a loser, I will try my best to win. In Warhammer it means I take a good list, in MtG I play the best deck I can play, when I go to the track I am setting my car up to win, when I go to a shooting match I'm taking the best gun and ammo I can get my hands on. I do not lack civility because I try to win when there is a winner and a loser in an activity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Nah, it goes further than that. Outside the tourney environment you have to fit in with those your playing with. You prove yourself un-fun to play with & you'll have few, if any, games.

I mostly play tournaments. If someone wants to refuse to play me and give me an extra lunch break, that's fine with me. If someone refuses to play my list outside of a tournament, I doubt I would have much to gain by practicing against them or that list anyway.

It's not the list being judged, it's the person playing it. You =/= your list.

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
No. The competitive players just scoff at you for not taking the most effective choices available.
Like taking regular leman russ over commander leman russ.
Do that around a competitive <removed> and prepare to be shamed for your choices.

Edited by BrookM

Well yes, people are going to give you some skepticism if you insist on "I think my tanks are too good, they should only hit on 4s instead of 3s" as a strategy. It's not like there's any meaningful difference aside from their effectiveness at rolling dice, so it isn't a case of putting fluff ahead of winning. It's just bad strategy.

You are 100% not a wargamer XD

ValentineGames wrote:
You are 100% not a wargamer XD

By what bizarre definition?

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
You are 100% not a wargamer XD

By what bizarre definition?

All your posts in not just this thread but in general show a general interest in only 1 thing.
Winning via optimisation.
You are a try-hard.
You insult players openly who play for the game (Removed). For the social interaction. For the narrative. For the sake of just having a game with toys. Who aren't "try-hards" like you.
You don't give two feths about the game only for showing your superiority over others. Whether that be through optimisation in building lists or just winning in the most efficient way with regards only for your enjoyment.
You are the kind of person who if challenged with a 1000pts defender vs 2000pts attacker game would walk away telling everyone how stupid they are are inferior they are to you.

You are a Miniature Gamer.
Not a wargamer.
A wargamer isn't in it for the endorphin rush of proving his or her superiority over those he or she considers lesser beings who play games far beneath them in ways considered too peasant like.

You are THAT FRAGGING GUY.

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
You are 100% not a wargamer XD

By what bizarre definition?

Does it even matter that I are playing a war game. If winning is all that matters then play stone paper scissors or just wee up a wall. It’s is a very silly thing to take so seriously. The guy asking for six more points isn’t doing it to win in this case but more to include something that means something to him. Thank goodness I won’t ever meet you let alone play against u.

ValentineGames wrote:
All your posts in not just this thread but in general show a general interest in only 1 thing.
Winning via optimisation.

"STOP HAVING FUN WITH SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE YOUR NOT A WARGAMER IF YOU DON'T PLAY WARGAMES THE WAY I WANT".

You insult players openly who play for the game (and of course despite it being VERY openly done the mods are too busy jerking off).

Hypocrisy, thy name is ValentineGames. Perhaps you should make that "jerking off" comment to the moderators directly, they could be very helpful in making sure you don't have to worry about it anymore.

For the narrative.

I have not attacked people who play for the story. In fact, I have defended narrative gaming quite strongly in criticizing GW's laughably bad attempt at producing a narrative system and pointing out that narrative players deserve better treatment.

You don't give two feths about the game only for showing your superiority over others. Whether that be through optimisation in building lists or just winning in the most efficient way with regards only for your enjoyment.
You are the kind of person who if challenged with a 1000pts defender vs 2000pts attacker game would walk away telling everyone how stupid they are are inferior they are to you.

IOW, "STOP HAVING FUN THE WAY I DON'T LIKE".

You are a Miniature Gamer.
Not a wargamer.
A wargamer isn't in it for the endorphin rush of proving his or her superiority over those he or she considers lesser beings who play games far beneath them in ways considered too peasant like.

IOW, "wargamers are only people who play the game for the reasons I enjoy, if you play a wargame and enjoy other parts of that game then you don't count". Makes perfect sense...

ValentineGames wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And yet it's the "casual" players asking to break the point limit, while the competitive players wouldn't even think of asking for extra points. So who is WAAC?

No. The competitive players just scoff at you for not taking the most effective choices available.
Like taking regular leman russ over commander leman russ.
Do that around a competitive <removed> and prepare to be shamed for your choices.

Edited by BrookM

That's absolutely not a competitive player thing, that's a prick thing. Stop labelling everyone to play the game competitively under the same banner, I assure you there is plenty of pricks who play this game casually too.

 Zuri Prime wrote:
Reading through this thread...wow.

I understand the game is a valuable investment of time for both sides, but is it really so bad to have a little give when it comes to rules, lists and gameplay? If my opponent brings 1505 points to a 1500 games and it's friendly, cool. I really don't care. If it's for a tournament, of course not. It all depends on the attitude. I however don't understand the mentality of pure-blooded WAAC where everything is a debate, a problem or a point of contention. I just don't play with those sorts of people.

Personally I like to run semi-competitive, but I use mostly inlore reasons to explain why more force composition is the way it is. Some things I run because I pretty much have to, others for fun. Just have a good time folks. It's expensive Yahtzee.

Yeah. Novel concept as talking to opponent has died and then people are fixated on idea that points are somehow balanced when they aren't even designed for it Anybody using points for balance is misusing concept of points to begin with.

 Peregrine wrote:
Well yes, people are going to give you some skepticism if you insist on "I think my tanks are too good, they should only hit on 4s instead of 3s" as a strategy. It's not like there's any meaningful difference aside from their effectiveness at rolling dice, so it isn't a case of putting fluff ahead of winning. It's just bad strategy.

Perhaps the player realises that IG is one of the most powerful armies in the game at the moment. and they decide to not push for every possible advantage because their opponent is not playing an army so powerful. You know, in case they want to actually try ti win via tactical skills instead of choosing the things which are OP due GWs poor balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brad Gamma wrote:
Another thing that annoys me is this abuse of the term competitive. To me it means you actively seek out meaningful and challenging competition, and that you like to win. To other people it seems to mean rigidly adhering to a system, whether you think its actually balanced or not, and that you like to win.

If someone asked to use a few extra points, because it keeps their squads wysiwyg and it helps them reach the game size we want? Heck, if they wanna add a few hundred points because they think their faction is underpowered. My response most of the time? BRING IT ON. That sounds like a challenge!

Exactly! I really like the game aspect of the hobby, and I do play to win. I try to get the most out of my units (which is different than choosing the best units to begin with.) But I don't want to win at army building stage, that just removes all that fun. When I was playing my Primaris & IG soup against my friends IG at their first 8E game, I intentionally didn't not choose RG chapter tactics, nor did I take Grand Strategist or Kurov's Aquila. IG is strong army, but it was their first game of the edition, and I think those advantages would have pushed the starting point too much in my favour. So we had a very close game, I won in the end, but only barely.

No need to pull a "No True Scotsman". We are all in this hobby together and get different things out of it.

 Peregrine wrote:


I have not attacked people who play for the story. In fact, I have defended narrative gaming quite strongly in criticizing GW's laughably bad attempt at producing a narrative system and pointing out that narrative players deserve better treatment.

Please, just stop acting like some narrative savior... You have not defended narrative gaming, you have defended your misguided concept of what narrative gaming is. You have actively derailed every rare narrative thread on dakka since I'm logged in by ranting about inadequacy of any 40K edition to narrative play and name calling people who actually can have a narrative games using GW base rules fanboys or "pretend to play narrative while all you do is playing unoptimized competitive games" CAAC and you actively continue to do so even in this very thread.

Seriously, what you think you represent in your head and how other people see you through your posts are two completely different things. Try to look at yourself from an outside perspective sometimes, it might be a revelation to you...

nou wrote:
Please, just stop acting like some narrative savior... You have not defended narrative gaming, you have defended your misguided concept of what narrative gaming is. You have actively derailed every rare narrative thread on dakka since I'm logged in by ranting about inadequacy of any 40K edition to narrative play and name calling people who actually can have a narrative games using GW base rules fanboys or "pretend to play narrative while all you do is playing unoptimized competitive games" CAAC and you actively continue to do so even in this very thread.

Seriously, what you think you represent in your head and how other people see you through your posts are two completely different things. Try to look at yourself from an outside perspective sometimes, it might be a revelation to you...

Sorry, I forgot that for some people "narrative" means "white knight everything GW does and FORGE A NARRATIVE BEER AND PRETZELS". Unfortunately the reality is that "narrative" means something more than publishing a matched play mission pack and a suggestion to use a less-accurate point system, as GW has done. A proper narrative game includes things like rules for creating and advancing your own characters, guidelines on designing army-specific scenarios that are balanced enough to be fun, etc. Hell, even previous editions of 40k used to have more narrative content. There used to be whole expansion books dedicated to narrative-style games (Cities of Death, etc), FW campaign books with piles of fluff and a whole set of campaign missions to let you play out the story of the book, etc. But the reality of 8th edition is that if you're playing a legitimate narrative game it's because you've done all the work of creating those game elements for GW, turning the generic matched play core game into something more story-focused.

The only question with 8th edition "narrative" gaming is why so many narrative players are willing to defend the garbage GW is publishing instead of being outraged and demanding better treatment. But I guess as long as they publish something that's bad for competitive play that makes it "narrative" enough...

 Peregrine wrote:


And you continue to ignore that the sole reason for asking for 2005 points instead of 2000 is to modify a 2000 point list to include an extra upgrade that the player wants. There is nothing special about 2005 points, it's just the total they need for that particular game. It isn't the specific number that's cheating, it's the attempt to use the point limit as a strategy to bias the game in their favor instead of a player-neutral way of setting the size of the game.

And you ignore the real reason behind that: it isn't to stomp the opponent, it's to play the army we wanted to play which is slightly above the budget. Again the points format is not a rule, if you bring a 2000 points list to a club is your problem. You may find players that only accept 1000 points, 1250 or 1500. Or the guy that has 2005; in that case the game would be 2005 not 2000 with an exception on one side. There's no rule that sets the game size before two players start talk each other in order to organize a game. You make a lot of examples of dudes that ask to change the actual rules, the points budget isn't a rule. That SM player is not asking to let Power fists count as a 4 points upgrades in order to fit the 2000 format, but to play the game at 2005 points.

There's no strategy in the attempt of breaking the points limits, simply that guy isn't that interested in working on every detail and stomping the opponent to death. Not all the players are interested in competitive gaming where list building is more important than the actual game.

There's nothing special about the ITC rules as well probably, they just favor some armies or units and players can build their list with those advantages in mind. Way more an attempt to gain personal benefit from breaking the rules, than the 2005 points SM list.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
Please, just stop acting like some narrative savior... You have not defended narrative gaming, you have defended your misguided concept of what narrative gaming is. You have actively derailed every rare narrative thread on dakka since I'm logged in by ranting about inadequacy of any 40K edition to narrative play and name calling people who actually can have a narrative games using GW base rules fanboys or "pretend to play narrative while all you do is playing unoptimized competitive games" CAAC and you actively continue to do so even in this very thread.

Seriously, what you think you represent in your head and how other people see you through your posts are two completely different things. Try to look at yourself from an outside perspective sometimes, it might be a revelation to you...

Sorry, I forgot that for some people "narrative" means "white knight everything GW does and FORGE A NARRATIVE BEER AND PRETZELS". Unfortunately the reality is that "narrative" means something more than publishing a matched play mission pack and a suggestion to use a less-accurate point system, as GW has done. A proper narrative game includes things like rules for creating and advancing your own characters, guidelines on designing army-specific scenarios that are balanced enough to be fun, etc. Hell, even previous editions of 40k used to have more narrative content. There used to be whole expansion books dedicated to narrative-style games (Cities of Death, etc), FW campaign books with piles of fluff and a whole set of campaign missions to let you play out the story of the book, etc. But the reality of 8th edition is that if you're playing a legitimate narrative game it's because you've done all the work of creating those game elements for GW, turning the generic matched play core game into something more story-focused.

The only question with 8th edition "narrative" gaming is why so many narrative players are willing to defend the garbage GW is publishing instead of being outraged and demanding better treatment. But I guess as long as they publish something that's bad for competitive play that makes it "narrative" enough...

Nice to see you have changed your views about 7th ed narrative capabilities - most of those narrative threads you derailed happened during 7th... I have never witnessed you brainstorm anything narrative, even more so, you actively acted to suppress narrative brainstorming threads and explicitly refused to provide any valuable input to those threads. You attacked any custom character/fandex threads and you always act towards narrative gaming with exact same attitude as above. You think that the only way to play 40k narratively is to force GW to publish the rules exactly as you wish and that your opinion on the matter is some divine truth. After seeing your way of argumentation in this thread I'll say this: you have some serious problems with communicating with people and must rely on outside authority in form of strict rulesets even in purposefully sandbox, narrative context. It takes no more that 15 minutes of pre-game discussion to have a proper narrative game between two adults that know how to communicate. It takes an evening to come up with a strong narrative scenario and few evenings to construct a linked campaign with all the stuff you expect GW to provide you, or to construct it based on rules, that GW have actually provided. Peregrine, YOU are the reason why narrative 40K doesn't work for you, not other players and not GW lack of understanding the needs of their playerbase.

Seriously, you exist in some imaginary world full of white knights, CAAC, pathetic excusers and all kinds of people who have not yet discovered that you are some kind of oracle and the last bastion of reason.

And I should also add, that you have repeatedly argued, that ALL narrative players in those threads could as well just push their minis around making pew pew noises, because they were not serious enough about the only allowed and true concept of narrative games. Your concept.

I find it beyond hilarious Peregrine is quick to call out others for their views not gelling with theirs, but it'sn never on them. Literally every counter is "The WAAC person is the one looking to take a few extra points" despite that not being so bad IF THE OPPONENT IS FINE WITH IT. It's "Stop having fun the way I don't like" when countering someone with a different viewpoint, but it's never Peregrine who is telling others to not have fun the way they want when Peregrine slams PL and calls it useless or insults people for not optimizing a list.

Peregrine, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Everything you post as a "counter" to people is only pointing out how they are wrong, not how you could be wrong if the tables were turned. Your accusation of cheating is nonsense because nothing is cheating if your opponent is fine with it (something you continually ignore in your diatribes about how it's such a cardinal sin and heinous crime).

Your entire argument is just what you rail against. "Stop having fun the way I don't like". That's exactly what you're doing: Slamming anyone and everyone who doesn't share your narrow view of the game (which you seem to hate with a passion judging from how quick you are to call GW's designers a bunch of incompetent buffoons).

You're just a hypocrite who can't even see that the crap you're arguing against is exactly what you're doing, but somehow your viewpoint is more correct than everyone else. Anyone who uses PL is an idiot, anyone who doesn't play to win is an idiot, anyone who thinks that narrative gaming is fun is wrong because herp derp forge the narrative, etc.

Wayniac wrote:
I find it beyond hilarious Peregrine is quick to call out others for their views not gelling with theirs, but it'sn never on them. Literally every counter is "The WAAC person is the one looking to take a few extra points" despite that not being so bad IF THE OPPONENT IS FINE WITH IT. It's "Stop having fun the way I don't like" when countering someone with a different viewpoint, but it's never Peregrine who is telling others to not have fun the way they want when Peregrine slams PL and calls it useless or insults people for not optimizing a list.

Peregrine, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Everything you post as a "counter" to people is only pointing out how they are wrong, not how you could be wrong if the tables were turned. Your accusation of cheating is nonsense because nothing is cheating if your opponent is fine with it (something you continually ignore in your diatribes about how it's such a cardinal sin and heinous crime).

Your entire argument is just what you rail against. "Stop having fun the way I don't like". That's exactly what you're doing: Slamming anyone and everyone who doesn't share your narrow view of the game (which you seem to hate with a passion judging from how quick you are to call GW's designers a bunch of incompetent buffoons).

You're just a hypocrite who can't even see that the crap you're arguing against is exactly what you're doing, but somehow your viewpoint is more correct than everyone else. Anyone who uses PL is an idiot, anyone who doesn't play to win is an idiot, anyone who thinks that narrative gaming is fun is wrong because herp derp forge the narrative, etc.

Yeah, reading that all-caps diatribe about "stop having fun the way I don't like" is hilarious in context of Peregrine's last little "casual gamers are not people" rant.

Peregrine lives in a state of constant extremity and there is no middle ground for anything with him - even when he directly contradicts himself on a subjective topic, he's still factually correct somehow and oblivious to any sort of logic stating otherwise. And that's coming from someone who also wouldn't play a game against someone trying to throw in random points above a set value. However the attitude he's displayed in this thread is so incomprehensibly toxic that it comes as no surprise to me that he doesn't actually even play this game, it seems he'd have an awfully hard time finding a match. I just can't even begin to understand why someone would dedicate so much of their life arguing on a forum about a game they don't even play (or even grasp how it plays, as is evident every time he attempts to weigh in on balance or direction, which is unfortunately far more often than someone who doesn't even play ever should). I'd say it's a phase and to let him grow out of it, but he's been doing it for over half a decade, so god knows.

the_scotsman wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I find it beyond hilarious Peregrine is quick to call out others for their views not gelling with theirs, but it'sn never on them. Literally every counter is "The WAAC person is the one looking to take a few extra points" despite that not being so bad IF THE OPPONENT IS FINE WITH IT. It's "Stop having fun the way I don't like" when countering someone with a different viewpoint, but it's never Peregrine who is telling others to not have fun the way they want when Peregrine slams PL and calls it useless or insults people for not optimizing a list.

Peregrine, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Everything you post as a "counter" to people is only pointing out how they are wrong, not how you could be wrong if the tables were turned. Your accusation of cheating is nonsense because nothing is cheating if your opponent is fine with it (something you continually ignore in your diatribes about how it's such a cardinal sin and heinous crime).

Your entire argument is just what you rail against. "Stop having fun the way I don't like". That's exactly what you're doing: Slamming anyone and everyone who doesn't share your narrow view of the game (which you seem to hate with a passion judging from how quick you are to call GW's designers a bunch of incompetent buffoons).

You're just a hypocrite who can't even see that the crap you're arguing against is exactly what you're doing, but somehow your viewpoint is more correct than everyone else. Anyone who uses PL is an idiot, anyone who doesn't play to win is an idiot, anyone who thinks that narrative gaming is fun is wrong because herp derp forge the narrative, etc.

Yeah, reading that all-caps diatribe about "stop having fun the way I don't like" is hilarious in context of Peregrine's last little "casual gamers are not people" rant.

I mean I am 100% for each way is valid. Sometimes you want to play a cutthroat tournament-style game where you both are trying to win and exert dominance. Sometimes you want something super casual, throw together a rough PL list that isn't necessarily equal, pick a narrative mission or use Open War cards and just have a fun game that takes forever because you keep stopping to shoot the gak about random things.

What's not okay though is thinking 1 way is "the" way and everything else makes you a subhuman. And that's what I think has continually been missed: Going a few points over is fine if your opponent agrees, and not fine if they don't; merely doing it and asking doesn't make you a horrible human being. Same with picking a certain unit that isn't as good as a different unit; liking Terminators and wanting to include them, for example, doesn't make you an idiot if Terminators aren't in a good spot. Same with always optimizing a list for ITC no matter what; there's a time and a place to bring the uber tournament list, and it's generally not to 40k night at your FLGS to surprise on a random PUG. Is it wrong to want to play tournament type lists? Of course not.

Is there a problem with being a competitive gamer, or a casual one? Not at all. But this thread shows why that divide exists, as people can't seem to get it through their heads that the other viewpoint is just as valid.

I play competive, and casual. Can confirm Peregrine doesn't understand how either of those things play.