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.

This weekend I will be meeting a friend and some new potential gaming buddies who are friends of his. It's supposed to be a friendly game. There will be about 3-6 of us. They are all new and have about 1000pts. for whatever army they each play. All I know is that my friend plays Chaos Marines. I play Necrons. I have been playing since a bit after 5th edition was released. The one and only game I played with him so far, I won, and he seemed pretty frustrated throughout it. My guess it was a combination of lack of experience and unfamiliarity with how Necrons play. I did tell him that the list I was using, I was testing for my first ever tournament, which I did better than a third of the players. It was three games, and I lost, won and drew, respectively. It was also a local friendly tournament. I'm letting you all know this to give a general idea of how well I did in a competitive setting. It was about 40-50 people.

So my question to you all is twofold. One, what is considered a friendly list vs a competetive one in your opinions(generally speaking, not just Necrons), and two, what do you recommend I do to increase the chance of being considered fun, but challenging, with a Necron codex? I don't get to play very often, and I don't want to ruin a potentially awesome fun day and chance to meet more players.

Things I know I need to watch out for are my tendencies to power game and min max. I like to keep things fair and play by the rules, but I do like a challenge. I'm pretty laid back, but I won't hesitate to call out if something if I think it's wrong. Things like forgetting to move a unit and going back after shooting is fine with me, as long as it's not at the end of the shooting phase. Things like nudging models for extra distance irritate me though. I try to be fair, let my opponents see my list and ask any questions beforehand or during the game. I want to win because of good strategy and tactics. I don't mind loosing, as long as it's a fair game. I see it as an opportunity to learn from my mistakes and get better. Plus I think the close games are the most fun. Anyway, what do you think DAKKA?

For starters, I am generally all for playing the most competitive lists possible (admittedly a hold-over from my days of heavily playing M:TG). My attitude was that the game was at its best when both my opponents and myself are giving it our all, and that is in both play tactics and deck/list building. However, I also respect the desire for a more casual game, particularly with a hobby as expensive as 40k where it is both difficult and time consuming to try to adapt to a different metagame or even a certain list. If you were to regularly play your friend my advice would be to help him grow as a player by developing his list building skills and play tactics to a higher level rather, but as you play with him infrequently I understand your position. It might also be a good experience for you to try new models and strategies rather than just relying on net-lists, it will help you develop as a list-builder and may lead to you finding the wining combination that breaks the metagame wide open.

In terms of what is considered to be a friendly list vs. a competitive one, generally speaking competitive lists are min-maxed (ie, you will see as many of a single choice as you can afford) and filled with high powered units. Friendly lists tend to contain more unit diversity and units of a wider range of power levels. Friendly lists also have a bit more uncertainty built into them than competitive lists.

As for how to build a list that you describe with necrons, as long as you avoid Flyerspam (or Flying Circus, or French Bakery or whatever people are calling it these days) and Wraithwing you should be fine. A suggestion might be to try the scarab farm list (Spyders and Scarabs as your heavy and fast choices), they can be powerful but are no where near as good as either other option mentioned. They are also quite fun lists to play, and the most busted thing that they could do was FAQ'd away last edition.

If you're playing a casual/friendly game, I'd go with a fairly fluffy army. These armies typically aren't super powerful and allow you to use units that wold otherwise never see the light of day (flayed ones come to mind). Sometimes one of these units will surprise you and end up working exceptionally well, other times they'll be just as awful as you expect. These lists are generally less clockwork than a competitive list with lots more variables and room for error. This also can give you a good challenge though, as playing with a sub-optimal list where you don't have tons of contingencies forces you to improvise and think on your feet, making a victory all the more satisfying.

Thank you both for your input. I usually try to stay away from net lists, but I do study them for synergies, strengths and weaknesses. I may incorporate a portion of a net list sometimes, if a part of it looks fun. I have been using army builder for list building for a couple of years now and have created more lists than played. I have a variety of models, and even more I still need to build, but from what I have built, about half is painted.

I spoke with one of my other friends this evening after he was done with work. I have played with him over the last few years more than anyone, and he suggested, from his experience, the hardest things he has trouble with are mind shackle scarabs, lots of whip coils, and flyers. I only have one doomscythe/nightscythe, but he always struggles with it, and he refuses to buy aegis defense lines out of principle. He thinks that he shouldn't have to buy more models to deal with a new game rule, he would prefer that GW faq's that all missile launchers have flak rounds. I did point out to him that even though most codexes/codecies (whatever is the proper plural)don't have a way to skyfire, the aegis defense lines can be used by almost all armies, except I think Tyranids, and that with random objectives, it is possible to give a nearby unit skyfire if you get a lucky enough to roll for that one, and that option is free, but inconsistent.

Anyway, he thinks that I should, at least for the first time with these other guys, avoid using any fliers or mind shackle scarabs, and if I use whip coils, use only one or two. I could see why he would suggest this, but I disagree with the mind shackle scarabs. I usually only use one or two when I do, but he feels they are too powerful. Being on the user end though, I feel they are almost too valuable to give up, as a deterrent to being assaulted and to mitigate the initiative 2 timing. I think that having at least one would be reasonable, but when I put myself in the shoes of the receiving end, I see how frustrating it can be to deal with.

What about the death and despair combo? I like to use a destroyer lord and nightscythe with this combo too, but maybe preferred enemy too nasty when combined? Or the surgical delivery with the nightscythe? I don't want to make things too easy for my opponents by leaving too much out, but I don't want to beat a babyseal to death either.

Maybe you could advise your friend on optimizing his army instead of making yours less coherent? Or perhaps play the same game another time while exchanging armies?

Well IMO you can be both friendly and competitive, and I don't see why you should not use something just because people can't deal with it. Granted if they are pretty much brand new players, you could pull the punch a little to keep them interested. I've seen many potential players give it up after being roflstomped by someones heavy competitive list. But that doesn't sound like you at all.

And you can't expect people to learn how to deal with your army if they refuse to play against what it can do. I learned how to deal with mindshackle scarabs because it had been used on me before. Flyers go down to volumes of fire, Wraiths die to volumes of wounds, etc etc.

Also if your friend feels he shouldn't have to buy more models to play in new editions of 40k, He's in need of a new state of mind. GW isn't going to print an edition where players can just not buy models at some point for their army. Even players that collect since rogue trader era are buying new models, though probably a lot fewer. I give you Kudos for trying to appease your friend all the same.

At least you don't have my problem where my normal gaming buddy has a "winning is how i have fun" mentality, forcing you to play against (and with) the latest ultracompetitive cheese so he can be ready for the next nat'l tourney. I like playing competitively, but spamming lootas and boyz is tedious and boring.

Turn up with two lists - an unoptimised list with some fun stuff and an optimised list that's hard. Play at the level they're playing at list wise.

However, don't pull punches in the game, as for a new player, that feels terrible. A new player wants to generally play properly, and it's easier to hide pulling punches at list creation than during a game.

My friends don't like to play competitively, that said a few of them like when I bring nasty lists. I do cater to their lists and make it a bit more fun though. For example I have a friend who plays Strictly Khorne CSM with minimal shooting. I will take more CC oriented stuff/armies so he can get to do what he wants to do.

I personally do prefer competitive lists, but since I am meeting several new people through my friend and have no idea what any of them are like or what they play. I don't know yet if it will be several small one on one games, or team games. and how many of us there will be in total yet. We are pretty much just showing up with everything we have and figuring out as we go.

With have I have built so far, I can easily have around 3k-4kpts. on the table, but I have never played bigger than a 2000 pt game and haven't added up how much I can field at once beyond that for a while. after just typing this, I should add it up again, just to know, and update my signature. Now with double FOC at 2k plus, I have more options. I may be able to do a big them vs me game, but I would think it would only work at best 2-3 of them.

It's just that when I hear people say friendly game, it's so ambiguous. I agree with the idea of friendly competitive games. Ideally, I like to tell my opponent what is cool about there army when they do something awesome, or a unit of theirs dishes out a good butt kicking, and hope for the same from them, and after the game discuss what each of us did well and could do better. That is what encourages improvement, and a good challenge. Sure its fun to table your opponent once in a blue moon, but if it's too much or too often, it becomes disheartening for the looser and not much fun for the winner.

Sometimes though, you encounter a person who is overly sensitive about loosing, and if you beat them hard enough, or too often, they think your a waac player. They don't want to stick it out and roll with the punches, see what happens and learn from it. It's almost as if the term friendly game means if they beat me, it was a good game, if I beat them, it's an excuse to say I wasn't fair or my list was cheesy. I once saw a quote somewhere that said something along the lines of "Dear game designer, paper is fine, rock is broken - signed, scissors."

I only have used Imotek in 3 or 4 games, and haven't since. I will eventually use him again, but one game in particular, I went first, and wiped out a unit of terminators. I had unusually high rolls and they just happened to roll all ones for the storm power. It was unlikely but it happened. It changed the whole tone of the game after that, and that person said that they will never play me whenever I include him in my list. I know it sucked for them, but random things happen. He quit turn two. He may have won if he stuck it out. I know with random game mechanics, these things will happen, but I would hope to minimize this kind of reaction from new players. I want them to stick around and not rage quit, because they feel like there was nothing they could do.

At least with the Necrons, there are rolls required to make stuff happen and they could fail. I remember my first time against blood angels. There was an item that permanently lowered the stats of one of my models for the whole game, and there was nothing I could do about it, just because it was in his list. I hated it, but adapted and went with it. I lost the game but learned from it. Not everyone has the patience to finish a loosing game.

I will have a better idea what these people are like after meeting them and playing a game or two, but overall, I will do my best to have a good attitude the whole time. There is nothing wrong with picking someone up after you knock them down, just some people are too prideful to grab a helping hand when offered. I just hope they are of the same mindset and see the positive things. I just hate it when you do your best to have a kind and helpful attitude, and build up the other person, and they are stuck on bad die rolls. I am looking to increase my chances of playing 40K more often and don't want to alienate anyone over something stupid or easily avoided. After this, I should have an idea of what their boundaries are.

If I can build a medium strength for my list, it should feel balanced for most people. If they think its too easy, I can always up my game. If they think its too hard for them at a medium strength, it won't seem so overwhelmingly hopeless to beat it in the future as if it were at my full potential, and as they grow, I can increase the challenge. I will try the suggestion of making a few different lists at different strengths for either one on one and team vs team around 1K, or all vs me 2K-3K. At least that way, I already have them pre-made, so I can't be accused of building a list against anyone, and I can give them the option to pick one they think would be fun to play against, if they want.

I've always found competitive play requires a much larger pool of gamers in order to constantly be changing opponents. If you have only 6 or so, eventually the skill/discretionary income levels are set and it's pretty clear who will win any match. That drives people away from the game in general.

I'm to the point now where lists are actively attempted to be balanced against each other with player skill in mind, and leeway is given as far as proxying (WYSIWYG is entirely disregarded) or minor rules issues.

The overall goal is to have fun, and I've generally seen that competitive play puts fun in the back seat.

Of course, I'm known to do crazy things like play a game three sided where player 3's Tyranids were all given hidden deployment and ambushing rules and was specifically a chaos factor; probably not what most people would choose to do.

Darrett, I find your observation to be true. Although few gamers with a large pool of models can work too. I remember when I was at the point where I could only do 1K to 1.5K and told people, this is all I could field, my models and points are maxed out. Now I have such a variety, my options have expanded. At first, I was able to swap out a few units, now I can field a much larger army. I have yet to play a game where I can field everything I have, but most of the people I play with only have a few hours available here or there, so we usually stick between 1K-1.5K, and sometimes 2K.

I also am guilty of buying more than I have time to build, work on some models, and buy more before I can finish what I have left. I find what motivates me to build more, is to be able to play more. I feel like whats the point of building something if it will just sit for a long time. But then some of the models I have take longer to build than others and I should build them during long waits. Right now I am in the middle of building a ghost ark, and I still have two more after that, among other models I have yet to start. That's one of the things I like about this hobby though, once you have a good start, you can expand at your own pace. I just wish my motivation to finish building and painting was stronger.

I think it was Fat Bastard that once said something along the lines of "I eat because I'm depressed, I'm depressed because I eat, it's a vicious cycle." Along those lines, I don't build because I don't play often enough, I don't play often enough because I don't build. Although that second part doesn't have as strong of an impact at this point, I have enough models to play, just not as much time. So it's an imperfect comparison, but I think it makes the point.

So, a few things. Firstly, competitiveness and friendliness in this case are two things that are both trying to achieve the same ends - having fun. Competition is good because (in theory), it keeps things fresh, and when things get boring, they're not fun. Friendliness is good because you do things to make sure there's an actual game, rather than one player just getting curb stomped, which isn't fun for either party (unless at least one of you is a sociopath).

Secondly, there's no reason that a list you bring can't be both. You can bring a strong list, if the purpose of list strength is to make sure that awesome things happen during a game. You can bring a strong list that includes something that's good in CC so that you can have an epic duel. You can bring a strong list that deepstrikes a bunch of stuff in your opponent's face so that the game doesn't devolve into a gunline, etc.

We had our game today, and things went very well. There ended up being 4 of us. 3 of us never met each other until today, having the one friend in common. It turns out that two of them didn't even have 1K worth of models. So we decided to do 2 vs. 2, 750 each person. I had my Necrons, and there was also, Chaos Space Marines, Tau, and Orks. We decided to randomly decide teams by each rolling a d6 until two had odds and two had evens and those would be teams. I ended up with Chaos.

We had to stop at the end of turn 4 because the ork player had to go to work. At that point, the Necrons and Chaos was winning by two points, we were playing purge the alien. At the start, they were winning, but things started to turn around by the time we stopped. The Chaos player only had 1 chaos space marine and two cultists left, the ork player had only 4 or 5 models left in one unit. They really went at it. I lost 1 of 5 warriors, 3 of 6 wraiths, and one annihilation barge. I don't want to turn this into a battle report, so I will stop describing it here. If anyone does want to know more though, just ask and I will give a more detailed account.

Overall everyone was laid back and easy going. I think we will all got along just fine. I now have a better understanding of what they meant by friendly game. A few of them ended up going 1-3 points over the limit, there was some proxying, and we fudged a few rules because we didn't want to wast time looking up what they specifically were. Any issue that may have been technically against the rules, when it came up, was quickly discussed by all and agreed upon. There was lots of leeway with how things went. Ultimately, this was a chance to get together, meet each other and squeeze a game in. Everyone had a basic grasp of the rules and we all had a good time. It was exactly what I was hoping for in regards to everyone's frame of mind. I hope things will go this well for any of you reading this, should you ever be in a similar position.

If you respect your friends, you'll build your best list and play your very hardest/smartest.

-Capt

 -Loki- wrote:
Turn up with two lists - an unoptimised list with some fun stuff and an optimised list that's hard. Play at the level they're playing at list wise.

However, don't pull punches in the game, as for a new player, that feels terrible. A new player wants to generally play properly, and it's easier to hide pulling punches at list creation than during a game.

But showing up with a non optimised list is just that , it is like playing to lose ? And why should someone be forced to play with weak/bad units just so people who dont want to buy proper armies or at least pick a good codex to start with have fun ? I mean if his friends are casual and dont want to win , then why are they feeling bad for losing . They didnt update their armies to 6th ed , they picked weaker/weak armies .

If they think its too easy, I can always up my game. If they think its too hard for them at a medium strength, it won't seem so overwhelmingly hopeless to beat it in the future as if it were at my full potential, and as they grow, I can increase the challenge.

they find a single flyer too OP . this means , considering the ally rule being in effect , every army that can take a flyer and everyone can , is too OP to play against . what would be a good/medium army for them stalkers and those melee dudes and even then god forbid he take lords to buff those hth units?

Makumba wrote:
or at least pick a good codex to start with

So what you're saying is that people who like the fluff/models for an army should just give up on it and buy the latest space marines and be unhappy with it (but win more)? I can understand expecting people to make an attempt to build a solid list from the options they have available, but it's absolutely insane to expect people to limit themselves to the 2-3 top codices when picking an army. It's also an excellent way to ensure that they get tired of the game and quit.

 TheCaptain wrote:
If you respect your friends, you'll build your best list and play your very hardest/smartest.

-Capt

CAUTION! 'Best' is a subjective term.

Well, what i find important is that you have a good mentality about the game. You try to think of a good list and play well with it, while respecting the rules and your opponent.
No need to change things, just be yourself and avoid fighting TFG if he shows up.


P.S. Of course, also avoid bringing 9 Vendettas on the table

 Peregrine wrote:

Makumba wrote:
or at least pick a good codex to start with

So what you're saying is that people who like the fluff/models for an army should just give up on it and buy the latest space marines and be unhappy with it (but win more)? I can understand expecting people to make an attempt to build a solid list from the options they have available, but it's absolutely insane to expect people to limit themselves to the 2-3 top codices when picking an army. It's also an excellent way to ensure that they get tired of the game and quit.

not but they should stop whining about part of the hobby they supposably arent interested in . no one who plays the game for the game , forces them to change their armies . fluff players on the other hand tell gamers that they should buy 2 armies[something they dont want to do themselfs] one for normal games and one for those they play against fluff players.




not but they should stop whining about part of the hobby they supposably arent interested in . no one who plays the game for the game , forces them to change their armies . fluff players on the other hand tell gamers that they should buy 2 armies[something they dont want to do themselfs] one for normal games and one for those they play against fluff players.

 TheCaptain wrote:
If you respect your friends, you'll build your best list and play your very hardest/smartest.

-Capt

this. by all means bring a competetive list just don't be a dick during the game and if they're new just talk them through what they're doing and give advice

Playing friendly in my book is not running max nonsense from your codex. If at 1k points you have a maxed heavy support slot, or maxed elite, or take named characters, that tends to be borderline competitive without taking into account what codex it is. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

If you make sure your list can handle anything that is thrown at it, while at the same time not being silly, you're doing ok. Silly currently entails the new screamers, flamers, nercon flyer spam, and gk henchman/assassin spam. Because keeping hammerhand and getting prescience is nonsense.

Makumba wrote:
or at least pick a good codex to start with

Come here so I can smack you with my tau, vanilla marine and demons codexes. Later, beat you with them on the table.

The only complaining you will see that has any merit is the FAQ-ed screamers and flamers, plus nercon flier spam and to a lesser degree, GK henchman/assassin spam.

By all rights, everything else is relatively close in the hands of a good player. Certain armies, especially some newer army builds, can be played by a brainless ape and still win.

I play the game for the game first, model and collect second, and paint last. I don't jump on the bandwagons and I reserve the right to hate those who do.

 juraigamer wrote:

Makumba wrote:
or at least pick a good codex to start with

Come here so I can smack you with my tau, vanilla marine and demons codexes. Later, beat you with them on the table.

It's kinda funny how you go from one of the weakest armies through a solid mid tier army and then up to one of the most powerful armies at the moment as a means to try and say you only play weak armies.

Darrett wrote:
I've always found competitive play requires a much larger pool of gamers in order to constantly be changing opponents. If you have only 6 or so, eventually the skill/discretionary income levels are set and it's pretty clear who will win any match. That drives people away from the game in general.

That still depends on the player. Having money doesn't automatically make you want to play competitively. One of my friends has far and away more disposable income than the rest of the group, yet spends his money on making armies as fluffy as possible - for example, his Wych army which has as few Bloodbrides as possible, and none of the really nasty tricks Dark Eldar can pull. Or in 3rd edition, running a rather tame Night Lords army based around Raptors and bikes. The rest of my group is the same. No one really tries to make the hardest list possible.

Competitiveness is in no way related to income or group size. The only thing that becomes a concern in smaller groups is list tailoring, since once everyone knows what everyone has, you start tailoring lists based on what you are pretty sure your friends will bring.

FOC-adjusting Special Characters (Draigo, Grimnar, Crowe, the like) tend to be confined to the competitive realm, but defining a 'friendly' versus 'competitive' list is pretty hard. I recall an old 3e-era 'test' I used to run my lists through that gave you 'cheese points' for doing certain things; the general guidelines were to keep Troops between 40 and 70% of your army by points, not to exceed 25% of your points in any of the other FOC areas, avoid Special Characters, limit certain units (Wraithlords, Land Raiders, Hammerheads, the like) to one per 500-750pts dependent on the unit, and a few other special modifiers dependent on list (IG got extra penalties for min/maxxing for more Heavy Support, for instance). It's an interesting set of guidelines to try and stick to for friendlier lists, but it's not something to take as gospel, especially because it's something like ten years old at this point and hasn't been updated in a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:

Makumba wrote:
or at least pick a good codex to start with

Come here so I can smack you with my tau, vanilla marine and demons codexes. Later, beat you with them on the table.

It's kinda funny how you go from one of the weakest armies through a solid mid tier army and then up to one of the most powerful armies at the moment as a means to try and say you only play weak armies.

There is no such thing as a 'weak' army, only one that is difficult to play. Based on that philosophy, Makumba's advice is perfectly valid; as starting with an easier army to play is a better way to learn the game.

For me the difference between a competative list and a fun list is the objective of the player making it. The fun player builds the list because of some other reason rather than trying to make the most competative list. This could be fluff, wanting to try new things, using a cool model ect. Competative lists are lists designed in the Players mind to give them the best shot at winning regardless of the opponent.

Now competative and fun lists have nothing to do IMO about whether or not you are playing a competative or friendly game. You can have fun lists in competative games and you can have competative lists in friendly games. The difference is how the players approach the game and behave in the game.

In competative games, I expect my opponent to give me no quater and I expect to give him none. We will enforce all rules accurately and strictly (no going back to a phase if they forget something), We will both be trying to deal maximum damage to each other (making the best strategic decisions we can). In a competative game there is still no excuse to be rude or not to work with the other person to be pleasant and enjoy the game experience.

In Fun games, I recognize that the only objective is to have fun so I am much more flexible about things to ensure fun is had by all. Ther is no point in rule Nazing though you want to still make sure things are playd correctly, and i'll consciously be aware if my army is set up to vastly out preform my opponent to make helpful suggestons and do everything I can to still make the game enjoyable for my opponet (joking about dice, or how tough a codex is ect).

When you are playing new players in a "fun" atmosphere, the best bet to approach the game is to be light harted and not rub it in when you start winning badly. Further it is important to explain what your stuff does so people aren't surprised and to be constructive in conversations that will start when a newer player is frustrated by what your powerful stuff does. For example wen your friend is talking about how strong MSS is you shold talk about well its a good piece of wargear but here are some creative ways to counter it/deal with it.....".

Most players, especialy new players, understand they will lose games, to make sure the game is fun, don't be a poor sport and do what you can for them not feel like their loss is an inevitable part of the game because of poor design or extreme play by you.

Makumba wrote:
not but they should stop whining about part of the hobby they supposably arent interested in . no one who plays the game for the game , forces them to change their armies . fluff players on the other hand tell gamers that they should buy 2 armies[something they dont want to do themselfs] one for normal games and one for those they play against fluff players.

Fluff gamers have a point. If we've both spent the same amount of points on our armies, why is your army so much more effective than mine?

Because the balance between units and codexes is just not right. It's not terrible. The game is still playable. But if I turn up with an army built around models I like and you turn up with 12 Vendettas or Necron Air Force, it's going to be a one-sided game. Why should I be ok with that?

CAUTION! 'Best' is a subjective term.

maybe if you live up side down and blood is rushing in to your head all the time .

No, it's subjective. What if I think the best armies are the ones that display a strong narrative theme? What if my 'best' army is the one I think is painted the best? What if I think my best army is the one with the coolest looking models? It's a very narrow definition of 'best' if you take it to mean 'the list that I think will win the most games'.

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
not but they should stop whining about part of the hobby they supposably arent interested in . no one who plays the game for the game , forces them to change their armies . fluff players on the other hand tell gamers that they should buy 2 armies[something they dont want to do themselfs] one for normal games and one for those they play against fluff players.

Fluff gamers have a point. If we've both spent the same amount of points on our armies, why is your army so much more effective than mine?

Because the balance between units and codexes is just not right. It's not terrible. The game is still playable. But if I turn up with an army built around models I like and you turn up with 12 Vendettas or Necron Air Force, it's going to be a one-sided game. Why should I be ok with that?

One thing to keep in mind is that, the two armies you listed aren't 'unfluffy' either. A lot of competitive lists are just as fluffy as many less competitive options.

CAUTION! 'Best' is a subjective term.

maybe if you live up side down and blood is rushing in to your head all the time .

No, it's subjective. What if I think the best armies are the ones that display a strong narrative theme? What if my 'best' army is the one I think is painted the best? What if I think my best army is the one with the coolest looking models? It's a very narrow definition of 'best' if you take it to mean 'the list that I think will win the most games'.

 -Loki- wrote:

Darrett wrote:
I've always found competitive play requires a much larger pool of gamers in order to constantly be changing opponents. If you have only 6 or so, eventually the skill/discretionary income levels are set and it's pretty clear who will win any match. That drives people away from the game in general.

That still depends on the player. Having money doesn't automatically make you want to play competitively. One of my friends has far and away more disposable income than the rest of the group, yet spends his money on making armies as fluffy as possible - for example, his Wych army which has as few Bloodbrides as possible, and none of the really nasty tricks Dark Eldar can pull. Or in 3rd edition, running a rather tame Night Lords army based around Raptors and bikes. The rest of my group is the same. No one really tries to make the hardest list possible.

Competitiveness is in no way related to income or group size. The only thing that becomes a concern in smaller groups is list tailoring, since once everyone knows what everyone has, you start tailoring lists based on what you are pretty sure your friends will bring.

No, competitiveness is not related to income, but ability to try different lists is. Starting 6th, for example, the player with a much higher income can afford to buy three Stormravens and three Stormtalons to outfit his army for the new Meta. He also bought two new units of Terminators to take advantage of the new power weapon rules, and an Aegis defence line and a landing pad. The rest of us just sort of struggle along with the same old army.

I normaly only field fluffy armies. But if I know Im playing against someone who only bring chesse I adapt my list to meet said needs. I find fluffy armies to be more fun to field and generaly allows for a better background story to be made in a campagin or series of battels betwen two armies or more.

 Trondheim wrote:
I normaly only field fluffy armies. But if I know Im playing against someone who only bring chesse I adapt my list to meet said needs. I find fluffy armies to be more fun to field and generaly allows for a better background story to be made in a campagin or series of battels betwen two armies or more.

Newsflash: Vendettaspam, Chimeraspam, Necron Flying Bakery, Razorspam, Paladinspam, Purifierspam, Inquisispam, and Raiderspam are all very fluffy armies.