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.

Peregrine, don't you ever get bored playing those same optimal units all the time? Why not set yourself a challenge to beat your opponent using Sentinels and Rough Riders?

 Crimson wrote:
Peregrine, don't you ever get bored playing those same optimal units all the time?

No.

Why not set yourself a challenge to beat your opponent using Sentinels and Rough Riders?

Because then I'd have to spend a bunch of money on the required models, then spend weeks/months painting them, and then have to convince my opponents to weaken their own lists so that I have a chance. Why bother when I can just play a good list instead?

I think everyone needs to take a step back for a moment.

I have not seen a single person Tell someone else they have to play a “Bad Unit”.

It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

 Anpu42 wrote:
It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

And what if "what I want" is to play the best units?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

And what if "what I want" is to play the best units?

Then You do so and I will play what I Want to, it’s that simple.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Then You do so and I will play what I Want to, it’s that simple.

If that's your answer then why did you post a long rant about "fun" lists and challenge people to justify playing a competitive list every game? Why not post a simple one-sentence "I sometimes like to play non-competitive lists" and leave it at that?

Peregrine wrote:

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.

I agree if you are playing the game and give any attempt to win whatsoever you are being competitive.

Most people grow out of playing with toy soldiers by themselves as the end result is always the same. The difference is that with rules and an opponent you can enjoy a competition and often socially bond through it. It is similar to any other game (or even sport) in that without any competition there is no game.

Have you ever played someone who gives up and stops trying to win? It is horrifically boring and it is better to just find another game than continue.

Also Peregrine is right that fluff and WAAC are not related. The elysians should be all flyers which can be overwhelming for many armies. There are many extremely powerful lists that are totally fluffy while still being far beyond the capabilities of some metas to handle.

kanebbcksc wrote: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.

This is a funny post in that you take a conditioned mind set of an individual and criticize it based on your own conditioned mind set. You assume your own belief system is superior and that assumption is patently not true. Both mind sets have their strengths and are only superior in a certain environment. You in fact assauged your own self esteem issues with your slightly condescending post aimed at the type A individuals.

Also their are ingrained human traits. The ability to think with a human type brain and a certain set of emotional and language abilities are human traits that shape how we think and what our responses are to stimuli. Not to mention what stimuli we can experience in the first place. All of these responses are conditioned and can be bent drastically with enough conditioning but there is a median for these traits that is the "natural" or "normal" state. Is a stockholm victim a natural or normal response to being kidnapped...not exactly but the human brain is flexible and can bend its response to suit the situation.


To the OP:
I think you may have been loose with the term "competitive". Did you mean completely WAAC and crush the opponent completely without any competition in the process? See that competitive implies that both parties have a significant chance of winning.

I think the majority of players want to have a game where the chance of victory is at least 20% for the opposition and the "competitive" gamers in my experience much prefer to play against other "competitive" players.

Some individuals do however have some issues where they do not want competition bu rather to assuage internal issues with domination of another individual in an arena they can. These individuals never make me mad (only sad) as they are dominating toy soldiers when they could have gotten so much more pleasure if they had just went into business, academia, or politics. These are your losing whiners and winning face rubbers (excluding the good natured ribbing of friends).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Then You do so and I will play what I Want to, it’s that simple.

If that's your answer then why did you post a long rant about "fun" lists and challenge people to justify playing a competitive list every game? Why not post a simple one-sentence "I sometimes like to play non-competitive lists" and leave it at that?

Well first Challenging is not telling.

Would I like to see people play more “Fun List”? Yes
Do I think that people should step out of their “Comfort Zone” and try something different? Yes
Did I want to see if others thought the same as me? Yes

I'm not really sure where I fall in the spectrum of players, but I generally like to be competitive when playing a game. To me that is one of the big reasons to play a game, if I don't want some form of competition I'll watch a movie.

That being said, when playing 40k I don't always take the best possible list to every game, but it is a natural inclination of mine to take units that aren't working and make them better. What I bring depends on a number of different factor including:
1) the cool factor of the models. (main reason I'll sometimes field Scourges and Hellions, Lady Malys w/ Bloodbrides, or Sgt Harker, etc)
2) does the army get me excited an force me to think about scenarios
3) am I bored with the army I've been playing with for a while
4) also, will an unusual list throw off my local meta a bit.
5) most importantly, what do I feel like running?

I do generally try to make my lists good, but I also want them to be interesting to me. I also don't want my opponent to bring a list that folds like a wet noodle. The best games are the ones you almost lost, I remember those games much better than the ones I steamrolled. As others have said, playing against someone who has no desire to win is a bit of a waste of time. At the same time, I don't have to be the best, and I do still want friends at the end of the game. I completely understand why some players hate tournament players, I've met the sort of people that have defined the stereotype. There are fluff players that are just as bad too though, they just spend their time in a different forum. I understand both spectra, but I also think both types take the game way too seriously.

Currently I don't really have time to play much, so I'm more of a painter and more into fluff right now. Someday however, I will have time to play, so while taking my time painting, I'm also building toward competitive and reasonably fluffy lists.

This is a 6th Edition Rebuild of an old “For Fun List”. In fact I have won with this list on multiple occasions.

2000 Pts - Space Wolves Roster - 2k Assault Wolves

Wolf Guard Battle Leader in Power Armour, 175 pts (Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Jump Pack; Wolf Claw x2; Warlord)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Wolf Priest in Power Armour, 160 pts (Wolf Amulet; Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Jump Pack; Bolt Pistol; Crozius Arcanum; Saga of the Wolfkin)
Skyclaw Assault Pack, 225 pts (Jump Pack; Power Armour; Bolt Pistol x8; Chainsword x8)
>Skyclaw w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Chainsword)
>Skyclaw w/ Power Fist (Flamer; Power Fist)

Wolf Guard Battle Leader in Power Armour, 185 pts (Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Space Marine Bike; Wolf Claw x2; Twin-Linked Boltgun)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Wolf Priest in Power Armour, 155 pts (Wolf Amulet; Melta Bombs; Wolf Tail Talisman; Wolftooth Necklace; Space Marine Bike; Bolt Pistol; Crozius Arcanum; Twin-Linked Boltgun)
Swiftclaw Biker Pack, 330 pts (Melta Bombs; Bolt Pistol x9; Close Combat Weapon x9; Plasma gun; Power Lance; Twin-Linked Boltgun)

Grey Hunters Pack, 300 pts (Bolt Pistol x7; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma gun x2; Plasma Pistol)
>Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
>Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Power Armour; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)
>Rhino (Searchlight; Smoke Launchers; Dozer Blade; Extra Armour; Hunter-killer Missile; Pintle-mounted Storm Bolter; Storm Bolter)

Grey Hunters Pack, 300 pts (Bolt Pistol x7; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma gun x2; Plasma Pistol)
>Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
>Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Power Armour; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)
>Rhino (Searchlight; Smoke Launchers; Dozer Blade; Extra Armour; Hunter-killer Missile; Pintle-mounted Storm Bolter; Storm Bolter)

Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield)
2x Fenrisian Wolf

Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield)
2x Fenrisian Wolf

This is the kind of list I am talking about.
This was a fun list to play; in fact I might try it this weekend.

I enjoy playing competitive games and the tactical challenges that those games bring. Winning or losing every game I play I want my opponent to bring as much to the table as I do. I get a lot of enjoyment out of the strategy and tactics of it all. Does that mean I enjoy playing against the same net lists over and over? Hell no, but I at least want them to bring an army somewhat optimized list and play like they want to win rather than take a bunch of bad units and complain the whole game about how under powered their list is and how badly I'm beating them.

 Crimson wrote:
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.

I agree with this first point wholeheartedly. Playing competitively doesn't mean wanting to steamroll people and then kick them while they're down, it means doing your best to compete and have a game where it really does come down to the skill of the players and could possibly go either way.

The second I agree with as well, but that may just be the Eldar player in me, where you have to have a varied army to do well. It's a lot more interesting to see on the table, but I think it usually comes down to the player and their attitude more than the list they're bringing. Even someone with the cheesiest list can be fun to play against if they have the right attitude, while someone with the fluffiest list can be unbearable.

List building is definitely part of the game. It's as much a part of the game as training and tryouts are for a sports team. It's preparation and getting your tools set for the job, and choosing the right tools is very important. That doesn't necessarily have to be the tools to dominate the opposition, but the tools to play the ame you want to play.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

And what if "what I want" is to play the best units?

people start calling you cheeseball behind your back and stop playing you?

what's the point of trying to optimize a beer and pretzels "narrative" game. If the game had a tight intuitive ruleset I could see more of a reason to get competitive about it.

On a more serious note, if people want to run a certain kind of list let them. If they want to run an ompitmized list then that's their right as is your right to put a list together made up of bad units. I use these lists because I want to have a fun game. Having my army fall apart like wet tissue paper isn't very fun.

kb305 wrote:
people start calling you cheeseball behind your back and stop playing you?

Not if you play with people that feel the same way about the game.

Can you see how a "competitive playgroup" would dislike it when a player brings a list that is just for fun, fielding bad units and stuff?

I think we can all agree that most players like a challenge and prefer to be matched against lists of the same 'level'.
Fun lists VS competitive lists seem boring for both parties.
The fun-list has no chance of winning and the competitive list lacks a challenge.
I have yet to meet a player that enjoys steamrolling over every opponent all the time.

From the desk of TheCaptain, a "Competitive Gamer" who fully advocates cheese, FW, and powergaming:

Well.

Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but:

I enjoy winning. I love it, in fact. I play sports, video games, and warhammer, and love winning with all of it.

But I've had the same list for about 8 months now. It's (IMO) a perfect list. Min-maxed to the highest extent. Plenty of cheesy units, plenty of cheap tricks in it that some would say are unfair.

I always bring that list to the LGS, and for the past 8 months I've been winning Tournament games, and going undefeated in LGS pickup games.

But. There is a but.

But there are new players, kids, and bad players at my LGS.

I will always play my Tourney list against good, familiar players, and I always offer to use it to new faces/opponents. But, to the latter group, I also offer to use my "fun list".

You see, after handily stomping a few people with sub-optimal lists, I felt bad. I could tell the game wasn't fun for them. I did two things:

1. I sat down with them and asked if they wanted their list to be a fun one with units they "liked", or if they wanted to play in tournaments with it. If their answer was the latter, I would pull out their armylist, and help them out. Assist in writing them a new list and telling them some good advice. Then we would rematch, and they'd have much more fun with their far-better list.

2. I wrote a crappy list. Wicked mediocre. Uncomfortably so, in fact. I would never field it against a good player. But I focused on making the models beautiful, and fluffing that bad-boy up. After destroying guys that never had a chance, I decided I didn't like that all too much, so I wrote up said fluffy list that would give them a shot.

So if you like beating up on people who aren't very good, that's fine. That's on you, and no one here should be mad. Winning is satisfying. I know it, you know it, and your opponent should realize that you enjoy winning. But If you're with me, and think that winning is kindof irrelevant if your opponent isn't very good, then it shouldn't be a factor. Fostering a better player in your opponent matters. I'd rather take it easy on a new-guy, show him the ropes, and give advice, so that one day he's good enough to give me a run for my money. Because while beating someone is fun, beating a good player is more fun than beating a bad player.

TL;DR: If I play good opponents, I wreck them with my good list.

If I play bad/mediocre opponents, I offer to use my good list, or my fluffy one. Either way, I help them with advice and gaming-knowledge so that in a few months, they might actually be a good enough challenge to merit playing against my good-list for real.

TLDR of my TLDR: Winning a game is rewarding. But it's not a game if your opponent is in a whole different skill-level than you.

-TheCaptain

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Rubbish. You can discuss how to use the list, for a start, how to use individual units, try to come up with interesting synergies. This idea that any discussion of 40K tactics is dependent entirely on the construction of the list is the main reason I dislike competitive play, because it's not about competing to see who's the better general, it's about competing to see who can cram the most loophole-filled poorly-balanced units into a list. The reason the non-ultra-competitive types don't like asking for advice here is because no matter what they ask for advice about, all the competitive forumers are willing to give them is "that unit sucks, that unit sucks, that unit sucks, here spam this and this instead". If I ask "what is the best way to use X in the context of my army" then "don't use X, hurpa durr" is not useful information, but it's likely all I'll get because of this attitude that discussing anything but the most competitive builds is pointless.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

List building is definitely part of the game. It's as much a part of the game as training and tryouts are for a sports team. It's preparation and getting your tools set for the job, and choosing the right tools is very important. That doesn't necessarily have to be the tools to dominate the opposition, but the tools to play the ame you want to play.

This is certainly true, and I of course consider different capabilities of units when building my lists. However, there are other things that affect the list building decisions as well, such as look of the models and the theme and feel of the units. I'm slowly building my IG allied contingent (that I hope in future can be expanded to a full army) and I focus on infantry squads and tanks instead of veterans and Vendettas. This is just a feel thing to me. I want classic tanks and mooks style of an IG force, rather than flying rapid assaut veteran force. I realise the latter would be better, but that is not the sort of army I want to play. I think most people's decisions are somewhat influenced by things like this, after all, otherwise we all would be playing Necrons*.

(* Peregrine, why are you not playing Necrons instead of IG?)

 Yodhrin wrote:
You can discuss how to use the list, for a start, how to use individual units, try to come up with interesting synergies.

Yes, but the OP is talking about list building, not coming up with tactics for bad units that you've decided to use even though they're bad.

 Crimson wrote:
(* Peregrine, why are you not playing Necrons instead of IG?)

Because I started playing IG before the current Necron codex (back when the models sucked and the rules were worse), and because IG are still a powerful army. Necrons are good, but they don't automatically win against every possible opponent.

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think everyone needs to take a step back for a moment.

I have not seen a single person Tell someone else they have to play a “Bad Unit”.

It’s about just playing what you want Every Once in a While Good or Bad rather then “The Best” Every Game.

most codex have either "the best" which I would call good or the bad. A SW player wont have BC and why would he want to use them . An IG player wont have storm troopers , because they are bad . A necron player wont have flayed ones because they are bad . Some armies dont even have a choice . nids or sisters of battles sometimes have 1 unit per slot . If someone builds a tyranids army without tyrants , guants , tervigons , hive guard and brain bugs then what is left to play with ? stealer spam wont even get in to melee in 6th ed . warriors do nothing to flyers and making a non optimal would cost ton of cash , 5-6 units of 10 stealers 5-6 finecast broodlords 8-12 warriors. one could buy the start of a new good army with the money.

it's likely all I'll get because of this attitude that discussing anything but the most competitive builds is pointless.

if something is bad then there is no good way to use a unit . What are people suppose to say , if a list wont work at all , unless someone changes like 2/3 of the units and most of the gear , more or less making it a diferent list ?

I wrote a crappy list. Wicked mediocre. Uncomfortably so, in fact. I would never field it against a good player. But I focused on making the models beautiful, and fluffing that bad-boy up. After destroying guys that never had a chance, I decided I didn't like that all too much, so I wrote up said fluffy list that would give them a shot.

you must be very rich , if you have whole collection of armies and units to build bad lists and have enough strenght to carry them around with you .

 Peregrine wrote:

Because I started playing IG before the current Necron codex (back when the models sucked and the rules were worse), and because IG are still a powerful army. Necrons are good, but they don't automatically win against every possible opponent.

No, but no army does. You however must recognise that Necrons are stronger book than IG (which still certainly is good.) Now your list building options are dictated by things other than what is optimal, in this case mostly the time and money involved collecting another army. Did you originally choose IG because you thought it was the most powerful army (at the time) or were there other reasons as well? Do you like the feel, background, and/or models of the army?

 Crimson wrote:
You however must recognise that Necrons are stronger book than IG (which still certainly is good.)

Actually no, I don't think this is true. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and you can't say that one is clearly better than the other.

Did you originally choose IG because you thought it was the most powerful army (at the time) or were there other reasons as well? Do you like the feel, background, and/or models of the army?

Cool models mostly, and fluff-wise they were good allies for my Tau. But that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

needing to win is really more of a kid's mentality. little kids need to win or they throw a tantrum. and they dont think about others, they are selfish. although im sure some immature adults are the same way. these are also the people who cheat. kid likes to win alot so he even bends the rules/dice to make sure that he does.

then you grow up and you appreciate the craftsmanship and art of it, the models that you like, nice terrain and as long as you and your opponenet both have fun it's all good.

kb305 wrote:
needing to win is really more of a kid's mentality. little kids need to win or they throw a tantrum. and they dont think about others, they are selfish. although im sure some immature adults are the same way. these are also the people who cheat. kid likes to win alot so he even bends the rules/dice to make sure that he does.

Oh good, this is the part of the discussion where we resort to insulting stereotypes and confuse "playing competitively" and "cheating". Good to know that you're not here for a constructive discussion.

Also, you know what's funny? For all the hate competitive players get for being "TFG" they usually aren't the ones calling people childish and insisting that anyone who enjoys a different aspect of the game than they do is a horrible person and ruining the game.

then you grow up and you appreciate the craftsmanship and art of it, the models that you like, nice terrain and as long as you and your opponenet both have fun it's all good.

Or you grow up and appreciate the challenge of matching skill vs. skill in a competitive game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Actually no, I don't think this is true. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and you can't say that one is clearly better than the other.

I'm not sure I agree, but that is a too long discussion to be had here.

Cool models mostly, and fluff-wise they were good allies for my Tau. But that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Of course it does! Your decision was based on things other than pure competitiveness, and that is exactly the sort of thinking the OP wanted to encourage. You ally your Tau with IG instead of Necrons or Chaos Marines because it makes more sense fluff-wise, and I put Sentinels in my IG force because I like the models.

Why is it important that you have a competitive list?

For me and my group, if we aren't playing competitive lists then it feels like we're pulling punches. We feel like we're playing the hollow shell of a game and that one of us is trying to gimp himself in order to make the playing field more even. We consider it an insult generally. If most of the folks in your gaming group are competent generals then you should too. It's an amazing feeling to go toe to toe with someone without handicaps and come out on top. It's one part of the game, and one you don't have to take part in. You're free to take your non-comp, fluff lists but I don't think you should get bent out of shape about it because your fluffy list can't win against a total comp/cheese list.

Like many people have said: Competitive lists and play are one aspect of the game. Your idea of semi-comp/fluff lists are another. You don't have to participate in their 40k, and they don't have to participate in yours. We can't all come to some sort of touchy-feely "Why can't we ALL use Rough Riders?" agreement and gimp ourselves for other people's amusement. I don't see why it's much of a problem. You can always find different people to play against if you want to do narrative style campaigns.

Be Zen about it. I never see Competitive players whining about people bringing fluff lists. And if people really didn't care about winning then I don't think people with fluff lists would ever complain about people bringing competitive lists.

Now, I do take semi-comp/fluff lists from time to time. But, that's only against newer players or if our entire group agrees on a narrative campaign. So...do that wherever you are. Ask everyone to do a narrative campaign and encourage the use of units that are total bunk. If you have regular opponents, then ask them if they'd do battles with fluff lists/under powered units. If they won't and would rather play a comp list then let them. Seek out others until you find opponents that want to take part in this particular version of 40k that you like.

Post Script: Anyone in the world who claims that they don't care about winning is a liar. There is no one in the universe that likes to lose. You don't get the warm fuzzys from losing. You may think that you don't care about winning because it's not your top priority, but if you lose enough times in a row you'll find yourself really itching for a victory. It's something in all of us. We all like to triumph over others in games/sports/etc.

Be Zen about it. I never see Competitive players whining about people bringing fluff lists. And if people really didn't care about winning then I don't think people with fluff lists would ever complain about people bringing competitive lists.

Yes, yes they do. You've heard the "Man it's gotten boring stomping these pubbies into the ground" crowd and the "Why can't these people bring the top tier units? Why did they even buy those worthless models that shouldn't be played". "He's got a cool looking theme army, but man he should just proxy that army for everything else that doesn't suck."

Post Script: Anyone in the world who claims that they don't care about winning is a liar. There is no one in the universe that likes to lose. You don't get the warm fuzzys from losing. You may think that you don't care about winning because it's not your top priority, but if you lose enough times in a row you'll find yourself really itching for a victory. It's something in all of us. We all like to triumph over others in games/sports/etc.

Probably not, but an enjoyable game is far more enjoyable then one built specifically to top tier codex specifications. Some people enjoy winning with a sub-par list, some people just want to actually enjoy the setting, and not everyone is going to enjoy learning that he spent +XX Dollars or Pounds on something that is so completely worthless that he begins to question why it's even sold.

Of course if GW balanced things so that EVERYTHING could be useful in some manner, we wouldn't be having these damn conversations to begin with. Because there would be no Trap Models/Units

A number of things that I feel the need to address... First of all, I really shouldn’t reply to these kind of threads because I know that they will (most likely) in the end result in no more constructive synthesis than: “You have your opinion and we have ours…” …BUT I can’t help myself.

First of all I started reading the text of the OP, and I agree and understand and I have found myself in similar situations. I play SoB, which kind of tells people that I am not a hard core competitive player. (Yes, they can be a bit competitive but I even play without St. Celestine!) I could easily go out today and spend 1000$ on a new army if I wanted to, being a middle aged “DINK” (double-income-no-kids). In fact I will most likely spend that amount on the new Eldar when they arrive because I like them. So I could get the FOTM-army, the WAAC list, the net list of the current meta, but I choose not to. The game should be played because one likes it. No matter if one simply likes to win or to have a good time with friends, neither is exclusive to the other mind you. However, after reading the OP I just sat down and waited for the first competitive or WAAC to come around and lay into the thread. Seriously, the words “fun”, “fluffy” or “casual” is like pouring blood into the water and wait for the sharks on forums in general and on Dakka in particular. It is always the same. Winning equals fun, fun is subjective (which it is) and WAAC can be fluffy. And still, I honestly think that many (if not the overwhelming majority) of casual, non-competitive gamers have a view upon “fun” and “fluff” that differs sooooo much from what über-competitive gamers and WAMCs (win at most costs) consider. Heck, when I, as a fluffy beer and pretzels guy, read a thread about fun and fluff I get a feeling that whoever is talking talks about a relaxed, friendly, non-cutthroat game where the mutual fun is paramount. And yet, every time someone posts about the fun and fluffy kind of games that we fun and fluffy kind of players knows about the competitive players need to come around and state that playing the strong net lists with the purpose to win is the fun way to play (according to them), I would just like to say that from the perspective of the casual gamer… well… it’s not.

The thing is, according to me, is that the majority of gamers aren’t competitive, aren’t tournament players and most of all don’t spend much (if any) time on forums like these. So here on Dakka and among the active posters we get a proportional over representation of the WAMCs because the relaxed, friendly and fluffy kind of gamers that are out there in the real world aren’t in here and even if they are, they wouldn’t bother to post replies or threads of their own because they know that they will be shot down, told to L2P, that their units suck, that they suck, lol:ed at or in other ways told that they are playing wrongly, badly or some other adverb you find appropriate.
So to the OP, I don’t think that you will find the answer you are looking for here on Dakka and more importantly, not from the people who will reply to your thread. As you have seen, quite a few of them aren’t really that constructive… The best answer that I can think of is just that, to some people, the tournament players, the competitive, the WAACs and the TFGs winning is simply such a big deal that it is simply not on their redar to play the game any other way. If they aren't playing to win with the most competitive lists possible they don't feel that it is worth it. From my own personal, non-competitive point of view I wonder why? And from here on I am quite serious and NOT trying to be offensive or step on anyones toes or such. But I wonder if it stems from low self esteem, taking a nerdy hobby way too serious in some form of escapism, compensating for other self-perceived short comings in their lives or whatever. In the end, many posters (and gamers) that a couple of years ago made me angry or frustrated today simply makes me sad. I honestly pity them. If a hobby conducted with small plastic men becomes that serious... well. On the other hand I have never understood what the big deal is with rooting for a soccer team, adhearing to a religion or the benfit of nationalism either And I guess we can all see that we humans can discuss those things in a calm and peacefull way...

Just read the latest reply and had to address some things there. I made a few attempts to get back into the tournament scene in Sweden. I used to play some WHFB before but quit and thought about trying out 40K. In ended badly! As a non-competitive player with a sub-optimal list I was actually told by the hard core players that I should leave and that I had nothing to do on “their” tournaments. My list and my style of play was screwing up their precious ranking system and it was unfair that some players “got lucky” with me as their opponent and gained points that other players, who fought Night-Scythe spam lists, didn’t. Again, I would just like to point out that I am not saying that they were wrong. I did bring a list, a view on the game and a mentality that wasn’t suitable for tournament play and I really had nothing to do there. As the post above says, they don’t want to pull their punches. So the tournament scene will always be “tougher” and the online forums will be tougher still. Not because of human nature, not because that competitive lists are the only way, not because we all want to win (and not all of us want that, I would rather lose a good and fun game than win a bad one). Perhaps it is the old school pen-and-paper role player who still thinks that a game of 40K in its truest essence doesn’t have a winner just like there is no winner after a late night of eating pizza, drawing maps, rolling dice, battling bad guys and saving the world with your role playing group. You are all winners if you had a fun night!

So… in the end, you have your opinion and we have ours. I will (again) end with the words of Pierre de Coubertin. Since there was a lot of talk about sports, competitiveness and the importance of winning:

L'important dans la vie ce n'est point le triomphe, mais le combat, l'essentiel ce n'est pas d'avoir vaincu mais de s'être bien battu.

The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Agusto

Agusto wrote:

The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Agusto

This line right here is exactly what most competitive players really want, though. You've got to understand, it's that everyone wants to win, not that we always have to win, so we're going to try to win, and hope our opponents do the same. I agree 100% that I'd rather lose a close game than win a ridiculously easy one, but the best way for those close games to happen (especially when getting random pick-up games at the LGS or on Vassal) is if everyone brings their A-game and plays to win. I'm not saying everyone should be playing net-list IG and Necrons all the time, hell I play Eldar, but, unless agreed upon beforehand, what a competitive player wants from a pick-up game is for people to put in the effort. This doesn't mean only taking the best units in the book, but it does mean bringing a cohesive force that you can play effectively, or think that you can. It DEFINITELY doesn't mean playing WAAC and sacrificing fun, it means seeing the fun in pitting your skill against someone else's. Like I said earlier, if my opponent gets on a hot streak, or pulls a really impressive move, I will definitely congratulate him, and be really glad that he's having fun, and still be having fun myself even if I'm losing because player attitude is the most important part of the game. Competing doesn't mean not having fun until the game is over, victory in hand. The little moments are still enjoyable. It's just the overarching mindset of the game.

It is funny how we see time and again the "fluff vs. competitive".

I am going to take a bit of a risk here in saying that 40k is more "fluff" than anything remotely competitive.

It is very obvious what armies have an "inherent" advantage but what limits us is the cost of the models, the build and paint time put in: we do not switch armies on a whim (typically). We spend HUGE time getting them together that gameplay seems like an afterthought even if it is the goal (and to win, oh yes...).

Rules like in chess are airtight, so support a more competitive game play.

There are so many grey zones in 40k, the rules that evolve over time with each new suppliment and FAQ it feels more like a wargame narrative (RPG?) tool than some "sport".

I think the "competitive" lists are made as a threat to be used against those who refuse to "play nice". It gives the message that I too can ruin your fun if you cannot commit to a vision of a big epic battle with a story line rather than a meat grinder.

When you think of the ratio of text for "fluff" vs actual rules written it is probably around twenty to one so you know where GW is leaning. I would think if more focus was on the rules rather than the creative writing, people could get their more competitive game.