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.

MWHistorian wrote: If I find a player that wants to play a fluffy/non-optimized game, we both play to win. The skill level involved in playing hasn't changed. It's just as hard to win as before.

But it's not equally difficult for the both of you to win.

It's much harder to win a game with just a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns than it is to win a game with a tau gunline or a flying bakery.

 Ailaros wrote:

MWHistorian wrote: If I find a player that wants to play a fluffy/non-optimized game, we both play to win. The skill level involved in playing hasn't changed. It's just as hard to win as before.

But it's not equally difficult for the both of you to win.

It's much harder to win a game with just a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns than it is to win a game with a tau gunline or a flying bakery.

Given that both armies are equally non-optimized, the level of difficulty remains the same.

Peregrine wrote:*Snip*

Ailaros wrote:*Snip*

Two of you, candle light hate dinner.

Now.

The difficulty mode argument honestly amounts to this:

"I want to have an excuse other than skill when I lose"

Or

"I want to blame my opponents lost when I lose"

It is not that my opponent is better at this game (which involves list building) than I am... It is that he brought uber broken easy button net list...and I didn't so when I win it is all skill and when he does it is list....

Honestly people lists don't win games by themselves, I've beaten reasonably good lets with crap before, but if you want to play this game on the highest level of competition you will bring a good list, because everyone else will and skill will be even.

While on the internet, I'd say it's not serious enough.

But I never really liked most internet memes much.

You can always look at some ones list before they play...........So you already of a idea of what to cry about after you lose. REALL TALK, i play for fun all the hardwork and painting put into the mini to see them on a cool table top is enough for me. If i put up a fight im happy i dont play to win i play to enjoy the game and the randomness that comes from them.

Just enjoy the game for what it is!

I was hoping not to see another WAAC vs HAAC debate evolve out of this thread, but since it started on the first page... I'll just carefully leave my 2 cents for the OP.

While there are certainly people at both ends of the spectrum (some of whom are there as a reaction to those on the other side), I'd wager that most players do - in fact - want to have fun playing WH40k. Now, one of the biggest parts of this in my opinion is being able to put cool and interesting models on the table and well... play with them. So for example, I adore terminators of all stripes, and I would love making lists with just terminators and a little bit of support. But why don't I do this?

I could say because it's sub-optimal to do so; that it isn't 'competitive.' I could quote all sorts of damage calculations and survival rates and so on until your brain went numb and every casual player wrote me off as "Oh another overzealous WAAC gamer." But really what it's about (for me) is that a unit which does not perform how it's depicted in the fluff isn't a fun or enjoyable representation of that unit. So an army of terminators that gets shot off the board by turn 3 isn't fun for me to play, because I want my terminators to wade into the enemy and get all killy with their lightning claws and thunder hammers and cyclone missile launchers, etc etc etc. So for me, optimizing a list is more about making the most of each unit, because if each unit is performing at its best, it's far more likely that my army is living up to the fluff that's behind it.

Of course, the fluff is a bit overblown at times, but the general tone informs us of how certain "guys & gals" in the 40k-verse fight & win (& sometimes lose). That's what I love about 40k - so if the game doesn't feel like the fights in the lore, it's not very fun for me. And it's not like only playing casually with friends will let you avoid dealing with this issue. Even casual lists can sometimes (or accidentally) contain synergies or powerhouse units that can make quick work of another person's "equally" casual list. So it's not always the worst thing in the world to know things like "Unit X does what Unit Y does, but better/worse" or "having only vanilla guardsmen squads really limits my ability to fight." So ultimately, I always find it's a good idea to listen to people's experiences and analyses, and also to not be afraid of coming up with wicked combos or sneaky strategies, as doing so makes you a better player - and better players make for better games IMHO.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Dunno if someone already said it better or not; I'm too tired to read through 4 pages of WAAC and HAAC gamers sniping at each other.

I don't really accept the more challenging argument. Let me put it this way:

Player A has a bad list, player B has a good list. B wins. Both players bring great lists next time (even copied lists) and A wins 5 times out of 5. A is the better player.

I don't buy the argument that copied lists will auto-draw even if one player has lower skill. In fact I think a copied list game would be the best way to sort bad from good. Look at the Wargamescon Mirror Match!