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 is actually in response to all of the cries of “But that just killed the only competitive list my army has!” after the latest FAQs.

Now as I see it there are Three types of list.
1] Tournament List
2] WAAC List
3] For Enjoyment List

Tournament List:
I understand that when you go to a Tournament you need to bring your “A Game”. You need the best you got because you are taking the “No Holds Barred Best of the Best”. These list I have no issue with them. I would run them if I went to such and [here is the important part] wanted to win. This might be the problem I have with some of the Tournament List, most of these slide over to the WAAC list.

WAAC List:
I know winning is fun, but it should not be everything. I have played against a few in my day and if I never play one again I will be a happy little camper. Here is my problem with WAAC Gamers, I don’t have fun. Usually when I loose to one I have to spend the next Millennia or so hearing about how he beat my “Killer List” [I don’t Play those as far as I know] and By the Emperor should I win, I can't enjoy it because he is now pissed off beyond belief because some how I cheated. This is not why I play.

For Enjoyment List:
Now these are the list I love to play. Win or loose as long as I had a good time my list served its purpose, 2-5 hours of hiding from the Real World. I went out and played the Units/Models I came up for the game. My hope is that my opponent has done the same thing. I personally feel that my Job as a player is to make sure all involved had a good time. This should also be my opponent’s job. If one of us did not then I have failed to do my job.

This gets to my List Building Philosophy:
When I build a list I usually have a theme, usually it stems from the idea of one to three units I want to play and have fun with. Then it goes to the next part, do I just want to throw out units I want to play, theme my list behind it, Fill out the FOC or go Competitive. I will use my Space Wolf Army in my Examples.

Throwing List Together:
I pick what I want to play, let’s say my two Lone Wolves, some Skyclaws and my three Land Speeders. I then just do it and see how many points I have left to fill out my list legally, this usually means two Packs of Grey Hunters. Then I fill out the rest of the list with whatever fits in what points are left.
The Pros: I get to field what I want.
The Cons: I might get my Tail Handed to me in a crushing defeat.
The Outcome: I usually have a good time, win or loose.

Theme List:
I really only have one Themed List for my Space Wolves; “The Winter Wolves”. Basically it is a Great Company that as a whole has become tainted with the Warp. The result of this is that The Mark of the Wolfen has become more common. So basically any chance I get I take MotW. This includes with my Thunder Wolf Cavalry and Wolf Guard Battle Leaders. I also use Canis and Fenrisian Wolves [I use a lot of Confrontation Wolfen for the models].
The Pros: I get to field a story based themed army that when I am finally done should look really cool.
The Cons: I might get my Tail Handed to me in a crushing defeat.
The Outcome: I usually have a good time, win or loose.

Fill out the FOC:
This one is simple; I just make sure I have filled out the whole FOC before I start adding extra units. If both players use this method you actually come up with a pair balanced armies.
The Pros: I end up with a relatively balance Army.
The Cons: I might get my Tail Handed to me in a crushing defeat.
The Outcome: I usually have a good time, win or loose.

Competitive List:
>Rune Priest [Master of Runes, Divination] with a Long Fang Pack [1x Heavy Bolter, 2x Las-Cannon, 2x Missile Launchers]
>2x Grey Hunter Packs [2x Plasma Guns]
>3x Land Speeders [Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher]
This is what is my Core I made of; from there is build my list around this. I usually end up adding a 5x ML Long Fangs Pack and more Grey Hunters. This quickly become boring so I stopped using them. Closest I come to using them right now it adding to one of the above to fill in points or quickly just fill out the FOC.

Now Back to my Point:
In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

Why do you complain about not using their Favorite Units, because they are are not as good as you think they should be?

Why do you shelve entire armies because you “New Codex” was not what you wanted it to be?

The only time I Shelved an Army is when the 2nd Edition Imperial Guard Army Codex came out and I needed to buy another $100 worth of models to make it Legal to play. The same with 3rd and 4th, then the 5th edition Guard Codex came out and I did not have to spend a single dime to make it legal once more.

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

Could you not have a good game will All “Bad Units” as you could with an All “Good Unit” game?

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

 Anpu42 wrote:

In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

They don't. You're a "fluff" gamer. Nothing wrong with that. It sound like you're playing against "competitive" players.

Ask them to play "fluffy" army lists for a few games.

 kronk wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

They don't. You're a "fluff" gamer. Nothing wrong with that. It sound like you're playing against "competitive" players.

Ask them to play "fluffy" army lists for a few games.

Yeah that never works, you could easily see it from a few posts on the forum.

"Alright, I'll play my fluffy list that looks exactly like this top tier, IG netlist that everyone plays, I've got fluff for it!"

You gotta designate it a bit down.

I'm sorry that the gamers in your area are like that, Zebio. I forget how fortunate I am to have my group some times.

 kronk wrote:
I'm sorry that the gamers in your area are like that, Zebio. I forget how fortunate I am to have my group some times.

Yeah got a mix, but generally I've found that rather then just doing fluffy lists. Try doing more along the line of a narrative campaign battle.

Tyranids assaulting the last bastion of an Imperial Stronghold while citizens and Artifacts are being sent out. Make up your own rules for the battle. Having to prevent FMC from downing the Thunderhawk transports, the endless swarm coming, bombardments coming from IG ships in orbit.

Usually the most interesting are something a bit different then normal.

People like to win. Fact.

Some aspect of human psychology makes us like coming out on top, whether it be in a fight, an exam, a game of Fifa or, like here, a wargame. Everyone likes winning, some more than others, true, but you can't deny that we all like to win.

Now, here's the crucial point. You and your opponent can both have fun whilst trying to win. Personally, I think that the two are, in fact, related. Let's take an non-wargaming example: I run the 3000m for my school and athletics club and, obviously, I like to win. However, unless I get an awesome PB (which doesn't really matter in this context), I'm not going to feel satisfied by a victory if everyone in else in the race decided to walk it. I am, however, going to feel very chuffed with myself if I run a blistering last lap and overtake three people who'd perhaps not ran such a tactical race and had got tired early on. I find that this is very similar in wargaming and, indeed, most things. Aside from massive Apocalypse/Storm of Magic/Event games which are generally fun by default, I only get the full enjoyment out of the game if both myself and my opponent are trying to win and it's a close fought, tense battle. Of course, I won't deny that I then get yet more enjoyment if I finally come out on top. I'll still enjoy playing a "fluff gamer" or the like, but probably not as much. To this extent, I take competitive lists, but perhaps not ones that would be referred to as WAAC. If it turns out that my army is far superior to my opponent's or if I'm winning by a lot, I'll start to get more lenient, perhaps not playing quite as "well" or "competitively" as I would otherwise. For example, I played a game against a Black Templar army the other week and I was winning fairly comfortably. My opponent had some sort of jetpack marine unit near one of my battlewagons. He had a melta gun and rolled to try and damage the battlewagon, needing a 2 to pen. He got a 1, I let him re-roll it. I enjoy winning, but I have no enjoyment of utterly thrashing a disadvantaged opponent, in the same way I'd get no satisfaction from winning a 3000m race in the Under 13's category (I fall into Under 20s now).

Of course, there is a point, which I think is what the OP is referring to, where the WAAC-ness becomes too much. Now, back to my lists, taking my Tyranids for example. I would like to include loads of standard Genestealers (because they're cool), but I recognise that they're not a very competitive choice nowadays, so I don't take them. However, I don't particularly like to take the most competitive lists around, so, unlike most competitive Nid players, I don't take loads of Tervigons and sometimes not even a Winged Tyrant. Nids are perhaps a bad example since they're not that competitive, but you get the idea. I like a competitive, hard fought game, but if my opponent takes something ridiculous like 6 Vendettas or whatever, or starts to move his models an extra inch forward to get into rapid fire range, or starts to pick up them dice very quickly, I will start losing enjoyment in the game. For my opponent's sake, I do not do the same.

TLDR: I can't really cut it short but to try to do so, I say there's a difference between competitiveness and WAAC.

@ Shadow: You are some one I would enjoy playing with.

Actually I have a small group of players I deal with; one is also a “Fluff Player”. The others are new and I am trying to teach them how to have fun without being TFG.
One of them, I will call him Mac, chose his army the way I think everyone should. He was looking though “Kruthik Slayer of Small Animals and Children” [our name for the BRB], saw the picture of Vulcan and said, that how I want my army to look like.
His girl friend did the same thing and chose Orks.
Now our TFG tried Tau, but was disappointed with them until he final read the Guard Codex [like I was trying to have him do for a year] and finally figured out he could take Tank Squadrons and Artillery Batteries. Now if I could get him to start reading the rules we would be great.
We also have an occasional Guard Player who brings a ok army, but use that Psyker/Psychic Squad combo that does the reduced LD Attack Combo.

I had another couple of players, one a Chaos Marine Player and an Ork/Nid player, but real life made them go away.
The Chaos player was almost TFG, mostly because he wanted to use the old and out of date Codex.
The Ork/Nid player was great, even though I could not beat him. I think he was at the edge of WAAC, but only on List Building.

So I don’t think it is as much my group as the community in general I am talking about. Both reading the “Whining” about how “My favorite unit now Sucks!” and “My Codex Sucks!” threads [I really need to stop reading these]. Along with every time I post a “Fur Fun List” I either get You list Sucks, you need to Change… or if I post it is a “For Fun” list and get no replies, I just sort of needed to vent.

This is actually the 9th or 10th one of these I have written, but the first in a long time that I posted.

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

I feel like the issue that causes people to complain when something in their army is nerfed is that they don't want to have to change it, or that they enjoy playing against tuned lists and now can't compete as well.

I personally am the latter type of player, but in my case I can barely compete anyway because my chosen army (Deathwing) is weak as hell anyway, and the most recent change weakened it further :(

Oh well, the army is still fun to play, I'll just have to change it up or hope I face something it can deal with in tournaments

I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

I am not saying to handicap yourself, as the title says: Does Every List Need to Be Competitive?



Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

Competitive lists are ones which can maximize the chances of victory against all opponents (TAC). If someone comes on here and asks for info on how to improve their list, the competitive standard provides this guideline. However, if competitive isn't what you're worried about, the there's no need to ask for list help and etc on Dakka.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

I am not saying to handicap yourself, as the title says: Does Every List Need to Be Competitive?

For me, yes. Every list needs to be as competitive as I can make it within the parameters I've set for it. Even if I go to make a more "just for fun" or fluffy list (like my 100% melee list) I still want to optimise it to give me the best possible chance of winning. Maybe its because I used to play TCGs, where even if I was playing with a lower tier deck, I'd still optimise it to win and constantly tweak and improve it, which developed my deck building skills. By doing the same thing with my lists in 40k I can develop my list building skills. Even if I'm using a list with "all bad units" I'm still going to try to work out the best list I can so that they synergise on the table and give me the best chance of winning.

Most tournaments I go to are not things like 'Ard Boys or anything giving most prizes to the armies that do well.

Sure there are some prizes for the top armies, but most of the prizes are raffle based. Things like top 3 sportsmanship, top 3 in painting, and top 3 in placement at the end give a good bit of extra tickets, but losing games individually gives tickets too.

Sure some WAAC guys show up, some people desperately need to win to feel accomplished, but it usually is MUCH less prevalent. These events also hit the current meta with mission styles that favor less spam and more balanced approaches.

In these tournaments I usually have fun bringing a list that is specifically designed to bring down one of the top two lists being played in the tournament structure. It would probably lose to ANYTHING but that list...but that one list will suffer greatly at my hands. THAT is fun for me. :-P

No, not every list! But there are enough people who enjoy the winning-part of the game.
My brother is one of those people.
In MtG he likes to win and that attitude changes the way he plays and how he builds lists. He'd probably act like that in WH if I could get him to play.

For me playing Warhammer is an excuse to have friends over for beer (even though I don't drink it) and in MtG I prefer to be in control.
Because when I am in control I can dictate what happens, I can shoot down things that have a too large impact and 'protect' smaller things to ensure everyone is having a great time.
It's hard to do that in Warhammer since it's not really a multiplayer game, it's 1 team VS 1 team.

One important thing:
Even though I hate the WAAC-attitude, I understand that some people enjoy it.
Asking person A to stop playing so competitive because player B dislikes it will result into player B enjoying the game and player A disliking it.
People should try to find playmates who have the same mindset so that everyone expects the same out of a game.

And one last thing:
Most lists posted online are from people asking for advice.
We cannot give people advice on how to enjoy his list more since that is purely subjective.
But peers can tell him how he has a bigger chance of winning.
Subjective discussions are "lame" since others cannot know what people enjoy and because you can't argue over someone's taste.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Competitive lists are ones which can maximize the chances of victory against all opponents (TAC). If someone comes on here and asks for info on how to improve their list, the competitive standard provides this guideline. However, if competitive isn't what you're worried about, the there's no need to ask for list help and etc on Dakka.

Asking for an opinion is not the same asking for help.

What has been getting to “Once More”, is when I post a list with “let’s say” Unit of Skyclaws in it. I get three pages of “Skyclaws Suck!”, nothing constructive.

Now if I say is a “Fun List” all I get is crickets.

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

I think that, possibly as a result of the people you play, you're lumping "competitive" with "WAAC" a bit much. To me, WAAC is much more an attitude of winning without taking into account the opponents, or their own, fun. Competitive, the way I see it, is more building a strong list and trying to win with it, but still having fun along the way. Competitive players will cheer when your opponent's single grot charges into your assault terminators, kills one, and then wins combat and sweeps them, because that is so unlikely and awesome you just have to congratulate them for it. WAAC players will b*tch and moan about that for the rest of their life. In the same vein, if a competitive player is on the grot end of things, they'll probably be glad about it, but be sympathetic to the opponent.

As for the list aspect, I like to think I have a good perspective on that. I'd say I am a competitive player in the way that I play, I enjoy playing to win and love a hard-fought game. But I'm a college student with no job, and I started playing in high school. Funds are limited, so once I got past the initial phase of first getting into the game where I just bought whatever looked cool when I had some spare cash, I had to be more discerning with what I bought. I'm an Eldar player with no allies, so nothing is really THAT strong, but I am slightly worried about how much they'll change things with the next book because it really is an issue having to buy almost a whole new army to still play the way I enjoy playing.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Competitive lists are ones which can maximize the chances of victory against all opponents (TAC). If someone comes on here and asks for info on how to improve their list, the competitive standard provides this guideline. However, if competitive isn't what you're worried about, the there's no need to ask for list help and etc on Dakka.

Asking for an opinion is not the same asking for help.

What has been getting to “Once More”, is when I post a list with “let’s say” Unit of Skyclaws in it. I get three pages of “Skyclaws Suck!”, nothing constructive.

Now if I say is a “Fun List” all I get is crickets.

Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

I prefer to help people with fun lists. It's a lot more challenging to work within a theme, or try to make something that seems marginal work well. You might not get a tournament winning list out of it, but something that puts up a good fight with a chance of victory. And most of the time you can see people's joy and passion for the hobby more in fun list. Not that it isn't there when people work on tournament lists, it just doesn't show as easily.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I think that, possibly as a result of the people you play, you're lumping "competitive" with "WAAC" a bit much. To me, WAAC is much more an attitude of winning without taking into account the opponents, or their own, fun. Competitive, the way I see it, is more building a strong list and trying to win with it, but still having fun along the way. Competitive players will cheer when your opponent's single grot charges into your assault terminators, kills one, and then wins combat and sweeps them, because that is so unlikely and awesome you just have to congratulate them for it. WAAC players will b*tch and moan about that for the rest of their life. In the same vein, if a competitive player is on the grot end of things, they'll probably be glad about it, but be sympathetic to the opponent.

As for the list aspect, I like to think I have a good perspective on that. I'd say I am a competitive player in the way that I play, I enjoy playing to win and love a hard-fought game. But I'm a college student with no job, and I started playing in high school. Funds are limited, so once I got past the initial phase of first getting into the game where I just bought whatever looked cool when I had some spare cash, I had to be more discerning with what I bought. I'm an Eldar player with no allies, so nothing is really THAT strong, but I am slightly worried about how much they'll change things with the next book because it really is an issue having to buy almost a whole new army to still play the way I enjoy playing.

This is how I would like things to be.

I also think some people are getting something wrong about what I am trying to say.

I want good competitive games. I also want to field and see Ogrens, Vanguard Vets and Leman Russ Battle Tanks on the field on both sides.


Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I've only been playing 40k for a bit over a year, and I'm nowhere near a good player yet, so naturally I try to improve. Granted, my Tyranids aren't the standard tournament build (only 1 Tervigon, using a Warrior brood and a Carnifex) but I've still designed the list to be competitive and be used against my opponents' competitive lists. If I were to handicap myself by playing a bad list I simply won't improve as much as I get constantly destroyed without a fighting chance, and by putting myself on an equal playing field with my opponent I can have a strategic and hard fought battle where not only will I learn more about playing the game, but both my opponent and I will enjoy more than a curb-stomp battle.

I am not saying to handicap yourself, as the title says: Does Every List Need to Be Competitive?

For me, yes. Every list needs to be as competitive as I can make it within the parameters I've set for it. Even if I go to make a more "just for fun" or fluffy list (like my 100% melee list) I still want to optimise it to give me the best possible chance of winning. Maybe its because I used to play TCGs, where even if I was playing with a lower tier deck, I'd still optimise it to win and constantly tweak and improve it, which developed my deck building skills. By doing the same thing with my lists in 40k I can develop my list building skills. Even if I'm using a list with "all bad units" I'm still going to try to work out the best list I can so that they synergise on the table and give me the best chance of winning.

OP: The quoted post is an example of the disconnect that ensures that there are some people who will just not have fun playing each other(note to person I quoted: I'm not having a go at you, how you play is up to you).

In particular, the idea of tuning your army to develop "list building skills"; the goal of the game is to win, and the game starts the moment you open your codex and begin planning your army, according to that mindset. Other people see the game as a primarily cooperative experience, and the game begins for them when you put models down on the table, "list building" is simply a mechanic that allows them to field the models they like or realise a story on the tabletop, and for such people the former attitude is considered something that only really belongs in a tournament setting.

Also, The Shadow; no, sorry, not a "fact" at all. People like to achieve things - that only means winning if the people involved in an activity define it as being competitive.

Pretty much all my lists are themed now that I think about it. Then again I've never played in a tournament because I don't enjoy the competitive setting really. Sure I take a beating most of the time but winning isn't the thing for me. It's the things that my units pull off on the field. You may lose a game horribly but one of your units does amazing things and is the only thing you have on the table at the end of the game. I've played a few games ending like that and it was awesome. My DE army getting massacred in 2 turns except the archon who survives to turn 5 and gets killed when the shadow field save failed. A 2 on 2 game (my IG and another player with BA vs two Necron players) where the only thing I had left in the end was my LR Punisher, which I field for the fun of it, and it had killed alone most of the warrior squads in the enemy forces. Fun games to me.

Then again there are those guys who always take the game very seriously. Too seriously. It might be good practice for a tournament though but I kinda don't see the fun in playing competitive all the damn time. I've played those guys and some of them look at me funny when I laugh at my own failures.

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

No one here plays bad lists or bad units . There is no difference between tournament and non tournament lists . So my options are play an army with bad units and lose , because everyone else is playing good lists or play a good list and play like everyone else. It is not just the win thing , but am not saying it is not important , but stuff like feeling bad about the money on you spent on something . If I spend the same or even more cash then my friends on an army , that doesnt work it would be feel bad . There is also the whole community thing , if you play a bad list you will be at best laughted at and at worse no one will play you , because playing against a bad list isnt fun for them .

When I started playing w40k I was a late comer , my 3 friends from school already had armies SW, GK and BAs were taken . So my only option was to play IG ,.I didnt even want to play w40k in the first place I liked both the mechanics and the play style of warmachine more . But they played w40k and while warmachine had a big community , PP kind of a stoped sending shipments to Poland for a year , so I couldnt even get a starer set not to mention actual good units . This is how gaming looks here . Sometimes there people who start a bad army , but after buying 1k points and playing 10 games against the stuff normaly used by vets they just stop playing and sell their stuff .

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
"Alright, I'll play my fluffy list that looks exactly like this top tier, IG netlist that everyone plays, I've got fluff for it!"

Sorry, but many netlists ARE fluffy. "Fluffy" means "representing an element of the background fiction", it is NOT defined as "the opposite of an optimized list". A powerful tournament list can be perfectly fluffy, and a weak list can be a completely un-fluffy pile of random units.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Usually when I loose to one I have to spend the next Millennia or so hearing about how he beat my “Killer List” [I don’t Play those as far as I know] and By the Emperor should I win, I can't enjoy it because he is now pissed off beyond belief because some how I cheated. This is not why I play.

I thought we were talking about lists here? Why are you bringing up player attitudes and bad behavior (which can happen no matter what lists are involved) instead of list-building choices?

In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

Because winning is fun, and because some people enjoy a competitive game even when they aren't playing in a tournament.

Also, forum discussion assumes a competitive list because how well a list wins is the only objective thing you can discuss. What is "fluffy" or "fun" is entirely subjective, so once you come up with a list of "fluffy" or "fun" things you want to use there's nothing left to talk about.

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

Because losing isn't fun, and playing with a random pile of units is a good way to lose if your opponent hasn't similarly crippled their own list.

Could you not have a good game will All “Bad Units” as you could with an All “Good Unit” game?

Sure, if you can find an opponent willing to play a "bad units" game and give up any "good units" they enjoy playing with, and then spend a bunch of time negotiating the exact power level your lists should be built at and carefully writing your list so that neither player brings anything too good. But this depends on finding a very specific kind of opponent, you can't do this with a random pickup game.

I definitely agree that playing to win is 'natural' and whatnot, but what my friends and I do is make a fun list, then try to win with it.

If you win, its hilarious and you weirdos can get that 'rush' or whatever.
If you lose, didn't you expect to?

I take a step back every game and say "These are toy soldiers I spent way to much time and money on" then continue laughing at myself while I assault a Hellbrute with guardsmen.

Doing silly stuff in games against serious players has made them angry, in my experience, and ultimately lightens the mood and lets them know you are not playing for the same reason as them and that they will waste their time if they keep playing you in a WAAC manner.

Love your approach UnadoptedPuppy!!!

Fluffy vs. WAAC vs. Competitive... Really, an individual's predefined expected result is tailored by two things: personal self-esteem and how they were raised (not any general human-nature, this doesn't exist in everyone). Competitiveness is not an ingrained human trait. Some people have deeply ingrained, and maybe not apparent to them, social and self-esteem issues that can be partially assuaged by winning games/sports/etc... You know, the whole feel-good I was better routine...
Further, some people are raised in environments that reward competitiveness and downplay the idea that the path to the finish line is where the actual fun is to be had (I.E. actually playing the game/sport). Winning or losing doesn't matter unless your pride depends on the accolades to get a boost.

Sorry, but many netlists ARE fluffy. "Fluffy" means "representing an element of the background fiction", it is NOT defined as "the opposite of an optimized list". A powerful tournament list can be perfectly fluffy, and a weak list can be a completely un-fluffy pile of random units.

Called it

Even when the reference was for taking a less then optimal list.

kanebbcksc wrote:
Further, some people are raised in environments that reward competitiveness and downplay the idea that the path to the finish line is where the actual fun is to be had (I.E. actually playing the game/sport).

Actually playing the sport is competition.

Winning or losing doesn't matter unless your pride depends on the accolades to get a boost.

Which is completely false. Yes, some people get an ego boost from the praise a winner sometimes gets, but the inherent value of out-competing your fellow players still has a lot of value.

To me this is a modelling hobby first and gaming hobby second. For that reason my army composition is greatly influenced by what models I like to convert and paint. This also means that I rarely have identical units, as it is more fun to build and paint something new than second or third duplicate of an unit you already have. Now, this does not meant that I do not play to win, I certainly do; I try to do my best with the army I have.

As for winning, I don't care about it that much, but I care about exiting games, and that usually means even and hard fought ones. I rather marginally lose an exiting battle that could've gone either way, than win a boring game where I utterly crush the enemy and the result is clear from the start.

In any case, I find that games tend games to be more interesting when people have armies with a lot of varied units with different abilities, instead of just spamming one or two most powerful units.

I think playing competitively and building lists competitively are two different things. Most people like the first, not all like the second.

 Peregrine wrote:
Actually playing the sport is competition.

But there is nothing wrong with heading out to you back yard and tossing the ball around.
This is what I am talking about. Not every List needs to be with your first stringers every time. Some times you should let the second stingers and benchwarmers play.

Exactly where is the value? How does it further your accomplishments in life or add to your body of work? I postulate that as it is meant to be a hobby the only real reason for it is personal enjoyment and the social aspect of being with people that share a like-minded view. I will admit that playing the game has an aspect of competition to it, but that should really be a very small part of why one plays unless you have found a way to make it into a lucrative career. Which, in that case, please share how we may all pad our checking accounts by playing our game competitively! I win more than lose but that has more to do with having a keen understanding of tactics than any high level of competitiveness within me.

 Anpu42 wrote:
But there is nothing wrong with heading out to you back yard and tossing the ball around.

Sure, if that's what you and your opponent both want to do, and you make an explicit agreement to only "toss the ball around" (complete with clear definitions of what is "too competitive"). But it is not a superior kind of game, or even something everyone has any interest in doing.

This is what I am talking about. Not every List needs to be with your first stringers every time. Some times you should let the second stingers and benchwarmers play.

So I should go buy extra "bad" units just for the sake of playing with bad units?

kanebbcksc wrote:
Exactly where is the value? How does it further your accomplishments in life or add to your body of work?

Competition is valuable because it pushes you to do better, and gives you the challenge of matching your best against another person and seeing if you can overcome that challenge. Winning is a necessary part of that, if you don't have a winner then you don't have competition.

I postulate that as it is meant to be a hobby the only real reason for it is personal enjoyment and the social aspect of being with people that share a like-minded view.

And guess what: some people get a lot of personal enjoyment out of competitive games.

I will admit that playing the game has an aspect of competition to it, but that should really be a very small part of why one plays unless you have found a way to make it into a lucrative career.

That's nice. Not everyone shares your priorities, for some people competition is the whole reason for playing.