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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Incorrect.

They can call themselves that, but that doesn't mean that they are.

Well there is not anything "official" that says they can't, so they can cower behind that curtain as they wish, to me it just tells me not to play that person.

I don't understand how your statement is related to anything I've said. Can you clarify?

Martel732 wrote:
"No true casual" fallacy much?

GW has constructed a game where people can BUMBLE into builds that dominate their local group.

Which is true of EVERY game that does not work with a set force list for every game. When I first started playing magic there a friend who was unbeatable, because he thought all the red direct damage was awesome, while I had an unhealthy fascination with craw wyrms, and another friend was fixated on serra angels and disenchants.

Not if the game is sufficiently balanced that power builds don't exist.

Varying degrees of efficacy, sure, but point and click, mindless auto wins shouldn't be a thing.

I've seen three stores die; one anything goes, one competitive, and one died before I got there but plays warmachine now.

All site the lack of balance of the game and the hard lefts that can be fielded as dissatisfying.

And Games Workshop should not have players expect to be communicating unless they start doing so themselves. I am happy there players that play in a more beer and pretzels setting coming forward to voice that they too realize balance is a good thing. And that as competitive players we too do not enjoy death star 40k or the shennanigans we see.

 Bookwrack wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No true casual" fallacy much?

GW has constructed a game where people can BUMBLE into builds that dominate their local group.

Which is true of EVERY game that does not work with a set force list for every game. When I first started playing magic there a friend who was unbeatable, because he thought all the red direct damage was awesome, while I had an unhealthy fascination with craw wyrms, and another friend was fixated on serra angels and disenchants.

Sir, have you played Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity? I have and they do not have this concern as the games are all more tightly balanced. You cannot compare wargaming to Magic the Gathering as they are fundamentally different games entirely. Because I understand general wargaming, I have stepped into at least Warmachine and Infinity, and as a new player, am winning games because I'm able to turn my opponents on ear with clever tactics to adapt; even in games where it seems I am at a severe disadvantage. And it was fun.

Many of those disenfranchised 40k players have shifted to one of those three games and all enjoy a better game of not worrying about what their opponent brings to the table besides their skill and capabilities. It's a much closer game of playing the player and not the army.

Me: "Hey, want to play a game of 40k?"
OPFOR: "Sure, lets play!"
Me: "Awesome! Are there any tournaments coming up that you want to practice for?"
OPFOR: "No, lets just throw down a fun game."
Me: "How many points?"
OPFOR: "2000?"
Me: "Are you bringing any lord of wars, Imperial Knights, or fortifications, or do you want to play against any of them?"

Its as easy as communicating with your opponent about both of your intentions before the game begins.

 rryannn wrote:


OPFOR: "No, lets just throw down a fun game."

Its as easy as communicating with your opponent about both of your intentions before the game begins.

The most subjective statement there. A tournament level game is fun for me, but not playing against a soul crushing deathstar.

Me getting a game of Warmachine:

Me: "Wanna play the derpmachine?"
Opp: "K, what points?"
Me: "I'm new, so how about 25?"
Opp: "K"

Start playing. That's it. Nothing more.

 rryannn wrote:
Me: "Hey, want to play a game of 40k?"
OPFOR: "Sure, lets play!"
Me: "Awesome! Are there any tournaments coming up that you want to practice for?"
OPFOR: "No, lets just throw down a fun game."
Me: "How many points?"
OPFOR: "2000?"
Me: "Are you bringing any lord of wars, Imperial Knights, or fortifications, or do you want to play against any of them?"

Its as easy as communicating with your opponent about both of your intentions before the game begins.

No, that establishes what expansions you're using. It does not qualify what a 'fun game' is, and this is where things fall down. To you, a fun game may be a fluffy list, with sub optimal units taken because models are cool etc..

There is nothing in the exchange you've hypothesised which precludes you or your opponent bringing a hardcore, face ripper of a list, just one that doesn't include LoW, IK or Fortifications.

That's all well and good in theory but what happens when I build a Iron Warriors list with lots of regular old marines, a couple of dreadnoughts and no helldrakes because I love the fluff but then show up to my FLGS for a game and everyone has their screamstar/dualttide/seer council lists because there is a tourney in a month they all want to practice for?

What about people that like Riptides, Knights, SHV etc? Why shouldn't they get to play the lists they like?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What about people that like Riptides, Knights, SHV etc? Why shouldn't they get to play the lists they like?

The main tournament folks are agreeing with this sentiment. Invalidating anyones army isn't fun. Setting aside D weapons as that's a special kettle of fish, they are building missions that have assymetrical goals that allow jetseers to do their thing, but an army of 60 power armor dudes, who cannot possibly hope to defeat that nonsense, to win at their "objective."

An example is the Jetseer is playing standard crusade. Their goal is to score at the end of the game with flimsy 3 man bike squads and contest as much as possible with the Council Memembers as it breaks up turn 5.

The Marines, however, are playing a scenario with the same objectives, but score points per round of being on them uncontested. So the marine player may get 1 pt per objective a turn while the eldar player only scores the normal 3 points at the end of the game per usual.

This presents a fair scenario for each army to play and requires a lot of tactical skill to play towards your mission and try to defeat your opponents (or ignore it!).

 TheKbob wrote:
If 40k had better rules this wouldn't be an issue or even a thread. That's the point I take from even having threads like these.

No, it's still be a thread because apparently the OP plays someone who is less than honest about points costs and brought Warhound and 4 Knights to a 2K game.

There's no accounting for cheaters, and this isn't the reason the OP started the thread.

 azreal13 wrote:
There's no accounting for cheaters, and this isn't the reason the OP started the thread.

It's definitely a contributing factor though since said cheater(s) are the ones running rampant in his meta and making a mess.

Casual 40k is the only 40k left, because to make 40k remotely fun or enjoyable anymore you need to bend the rules, use proxy/converts, make up your own rules, etc.. I can't imagine people playing 40k along the current lines GW outlines.

I sure hope not, that's all I'm capable of at the moment.

Because how an army is built can blur the lines greatly between casual and competitive, I prefer to categorize the two by the players involved. "Competitive" means their enjoyment is derived primarily (not necessarily completely) from winning the game, while "casual" is more where the players are getting their enjoyment from just getting to play a game where they are both sure to have fun, either win or lose.

Casual players are also the ones who "get more into it" when they are playing the game. While not necessarily making vrooming and shooting noises, they are deriving their fun from having their army fit with the universal background. In a sense, they are putting some RPG into the tabletop game, however a small amount that may be.

Competitive players always seem to be in "tournament mode".

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Casual players are also the ones who "get more into it" when they are playing the game.

I've meet plenty of tournament players who are big on the fluff... And plenty of casual players who didn't care a jot about it, and were just interested in playing the game.

I just go by my experience.

Subject: Re:is casual 40k dead

NO.

Find better friends.

Don't get me wrong, there are times a buddy will say "I am testing a competitive list' and I know not to bring my vespid....but overall, if you find people are playing lists you deem no fun to play...then don't play them.

To me, a casual game is one that I play for the fun of playing, rather than for the fun of winning. I prefer to win, that is the point of wargames, but I would rather lose a close, interesting contest than win a walk-over.

 Harriticus wrote:
Casual 40k is the only 40k left, because to make 40k remotely fun or enjoyable anymore you need to bend the rules, use proxy/converts, make up your own rules, etc.. I can't imagine people playing 40k along the current lines GW outlines.

^This.

I am surprised "competitive 40k" is still alive.

You know, I just realized something.

zilka said his opponent fielded 4 Imperial Knights and a Warhound.

How did his opponent take a Warhound? Imperial Knights do not currently have access to any Super-heavies to fill the Lord of War detachment.

I'd say casual 40k is even more alive than competitive. My friends and I are moving away from competitive 40k as we feel it's getting out of hand, and we're seeing the same thing happen with people who play at our FLGS.

Of course, I might be a localised example.

I look at this thread, and it makes me really happy that I am in a meta where everyone agrees on what is cool and what is stupid, and where we can design lists how we want them without even needing to worry about self-gimping or asking others to gimp their lists.

Example lists that you'd find in my meta:

Kharn
Flying Tzeentch psyker-DP
10 votlw Khorne chosen with 2 plasma gun
Helbrute
26 cultists
10 barebones csm
Plasmafiend
Defiler
Vindicator

Grotsnik
SAG-mek
Deff dread
20 stormboyz w/ Zagstruk
3 kans
2x30 boyz with pk nobs
Boomwagon
Big guns mob w/ kannons
10 flash gits w/ kaptin
10 lootas

Phaeron
Trazyn
Shard
2x10 warriors
2 heavy destroyers
5 deathmarks
5 scarab swarms

Prime
Flyrant
20 hormas
20 termas
2 meleefexes
3 raveners
20 gargoyles
2 biovores
2 hive guard

Do any of these lists sound fun to fight?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I'd say casual 40k is even more alive than competitive. My friends and I are moving away from competitive 40k as we feel it's getting out of hand, and we're seeing the same thing happen with people who play at our FLGS.

Of course, I might be a localised example.

Probably not. We have two gaming nights at my store. One night is Open 40K gaming and is very laid back, anything goes, however, nobody brings SA, Super-heavies, Dataslates, or "X"-spam/star. Unless a player is trying out a competitive army for an upcoming tournament of course.

The other night is an ongoing 3 month tournament. In that environment, things are (obviously) more competitive, however, with everything bar codex and codex supplements banned, nobody even brings Knights, despite being legal. Even with the competitiveness, it is still very laid back, people don't care about proxies/count-as, you might see some spam (mostly Trip-serpents), but you rarely see Triptide/Tripknight or Flyer spam, and maybe one or two "X"-stars.

Enjoying 40k is like suspension of disbelief; it is easier for some than for others.