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.

Veskrashen wrote:
Peregrine, you assume that competitive necessitates an highly optimized and min-maxed list.

That's what competition means. If you aren't optimizing your list then you're "competing" about as much as you'd be competing in a running race if you walked the whole distance.

Saying "X sucks because Y is better at that role" does not in fact answer the question of "can X be effective at a role".

Of course it does, because effectiveness is relative. If Y is much better than X, X is not effective.

In short, the fact that Unit Y is better at a role than Unit X does not make Unit X not viable, it means that Unit Y is better at that role.

No, but very few units are rejected purely because they are a bit worse at one specific thing. Usually the rejected units either don't have any meaningful advantages in other areas, or are so much worse at their primary role that no amount of secondary advantages can make up for that problem.

When the question was asked "which is the best Tau flyer?" your response was "they're not Vendettas or Helldrakes, so don't take them, they suck."

And what you've done here is remove the entire context for that statement. The point was not that they had to be literal Helldrake/Vendetta copies, it's that a viable flyer has to be that powerful when you're talking about a codex that doesn't need flyers for AA. If you aren't going to be bringing that kind of efficient firepower then you're better off sticking to ground units that do have it.

It is possible to optimize a list with suboptimal units in it. Taking "the best" units in your list does not make it an optimal list. That's the disconnect I'm seeing - that if a unit isn't "the best" it's not worth taking at all. Beast Packs are not "the best" DE melee unit, yet they are often included in "optimized" lists, because when combined with other stuff in the list they're really really good at what they do.

Yes, performance is relative. And yes, there's a good argument to be made for taking Unit Y over Unit X if it's more efficient or effective at it's chosen role. That doesn't mean it's an autotake, and it doesn't mean that you shouldn't explore the situations where it doesn't make sense to do that. Sitting back and saying "unit y is better" and assuming that any and all argument and discussion can then cease is intellectually lazy at best.

And you're right, I didn't fully contextualize your argument that Tau flyers have to at least be as powerful as a Vendetta or Helldrake to take in a Tau army, since Tau have other options for anti-air. What you assume, however, is that there is no reason to take a Tau flyer, since each of the roles they perform can be more efficiently done with other Tau units. You further assume that because you've made the assessment that there's no reason to take a Tau flyer, that there is no further reason to discuss the issue at all, and any other choice is suboptimal, and therefore uncompetitive.

That's where I disagree. Tau flyers - unlike Vendettas and Helldrakes - can be effective against a wider variety of targets from the same platform. Tau flyers are far better than Vendettas at anti-horde, far better than Helldrakes against light-medium armor or weaker side/rear armor. The fact that all the Tau flyer's weapons (aside from the bomb) are on turrets make it more manueverable than the Vendetta, and the fact that they've got 30"+ range makes them more flexible than a Helldrake. The fact that the bomber can theoretically engage 3 targets in a single move + shooting phase makes it far more flexible than a Vendetta or Helldrake. And all of that you ignore, gloss over, and dismiss. You argue that because it doesn't have lascannons, you shouldn't take it for anti-armor. You argue that because it doesn't have an AP3 flamer, you shouldn't use it against hordes. And thus, you should never take it at all. That's really really shallow analysis. Find me another 160pt platform in the Tau army that can be an effective anti-armor, anti-flyer, and anti-infantry platform in a single Fast Attack slot. Find me one in an allied codex I can use for 160pts total expenditure, and that doesn't preclude me from taking other cool stuff from an allied list to bolster other areas of my list. If you can do that, then I'll accept that you're right, and that there really really is no reason to take a Tau flyer. Then and only then will you have shown that all else being equal, the Tau flyers are unequivocally worse than the other options available, and the other options cause no additional restrictions to your list building.

Veskrashen wrote:
That's the disconnect I'm seeing - that if a unit isn't "the best" it's not worth taking at all.

Which is true. If a unit isn't the best in a given context then it's not worth taking at all. Likewise, if a unit is part of a completely optimized list then it IS the best.

Sitting back and saying "unit y is better" and assuming that any and all argument and discussion can then cease is intellectually lazy at best.

It isn't lazy because the discussion has already happened. This is 2013 not 1990, every unit is discussed to death before a new codex is even officially released, and within a few days everything has been analyzed and the obvious conclusions have been reached. You don't need to keep going over the same arguments again and again, you can just skip to the "X is not worth taking" conclusion until/unless someone provides an argument that X actually is worth taking.

The fact that the bomber can theoretically engage 3 targets in a single move + shooting phase makes it far more flexible than a Vendetta or Helldrake.

No it doesn't, because there's no plausible situation where you'd engage three targets. You drop the bomb on one target, and then you focus all of your guns on a second target.

You argue that because it doesn't have lascannons, you shouldn't take it for anti-armor.

No, I argue that because it sucks compared to other Tau options you shouldn't take it for anti-armor. Same for all of the other target types.

Find me another 160pt platform in the Tau army that can be an effective anti-armor, anti-flyer, and anti-infantry platform in a single Fast Attack slot.

I don't need to because the Tau bomber isn't effective against vehicles, flyers, or infantry. It's mediocre at AA (far, far worse than Broadsides/crisis suits), nearly worthless against vehicles, and marginal at best against any infantry with decent saves or the ability to spread out at maximum 2" coherency.

Ok. If you're stating that within days of a codex's release, all possible permutations have been explored and discussed and assessed, and the wisdom of the internet has anointed select units as the only ones that could ever be possibly taken in any list regardless of whatever else was in that list, and that because of this we already have all the answers to any question about any unit, then yes - further discussion is pointless. I call BS on the idea that that's happened.

And again, you miss the point. If there exists a single Tau option that can perform all the tasks a Razorshark or Sunshark can do as well or better, for less points, then yes - there's no reason to take it. My point is that these flyers are very flexible and can perform a variety of tasks well. You can indeed engage light armor effectively with a Tau flyer. You can indeed kill hordes with it. You can indeed kill other flyers with it. If you can name a single Tau unit that can do all of those things as well or better, and doesn't compete with other things in the same FOC slot that you need, then you'll have proven your point. Otherwise, it's still an open debate.

Veskrashen wrote:
Ok. If you're stating that within days of a codex's release, all possible permutations have been explored and discussed and assessed, and the wisdom of the internet has anointed select units as the only ones that could ever be possibly taken in any list regardless of whatever else was in that list, and that because of this we already have all the answers to any question about any unit, then yes - further discussion is pointless. I call BS on the idea that that's happened.

No, that's not what I said. I said that the OBVIOUS conclusions have been reached. For example, we knew that Tau flyers sucked before the was even legally available because it was obvious as soon as the first scans were posted.

My point is that these flyers are very flexible and can perform a variety of tasks well.

And the unfortunate truth is that they can't perform any tasks well. They're mediocre at best no matter what you're using them against.

You can indeed engage light armor effectively with a Tau flyer.

No you can't. If your bomber is in rapid fire range with both drones you get 1.16 penetrating hits (at only AP 3) against AV 11, and only 1.75 glances or better. So against even a basic Rhino the bomber has a very low chance of killing the target, and its effectiveness drops to almost nonexistent against anything tougher.

You can indeed kill hordes with it.

Within rapid fire range you kill about 3 models with the guns if the horde isn't in cover, and maybe another 3-5 if you can line up a good shot with the bomb (which is easier said than done). For 160+ points that's an absolute joke.

You can indeed kill other flyers with it.

Not any of the ones that matter. Against AV 11 it has limited effectiveness (especially since the AV 11 flyer that matters doesn't really care about most damage results) and against AV 12 (which is the most important) it's almost worthless.

If you can name a single Tau unit that can do all of those things as well or better, and doesn't compete with other things in the same FOC slot that you need, then you'll have proven your point.

Why do I need to provide a single unit? Why can't I do it the right way and bring specialists that handle 1-2 roles but do them very well? Why am I stuck with a generalist unit that can't do anything effectively?

 Peregrine wrote:
No, that's not what I said. I said that the OBVIOUS conclusions have been reached. For example, we knew that Tau flyers sucked before the was even legally available because it was obvious as soon as the first scans were posted.

It was obvious that it wasn't a Vendetta or a Helldrake, sure. Our opinions differ as to whether that means it sucks.

You can indeed engage light armor effectively with a Tau flyer.

No you can't. If your bomber is in rapid fire range with both drones you get 1.16 penetrating hits (at only AP 3) against AV 11, and only 1.75 glances or better. So against even a basic Rhino the bomber has a very low chance of killing the target, and its effectiveness drops to almost nonexistent against anything tougher.

Not sure how you came up with your numbers. With the bomber, your numbers are correct assuming the Networked ML doesn't hit, about 2.4 glances or better if it does. That also ignores the two seekers, which add another hit on average at S8. So yeah, I can fairly reliably get 2.6 glances or better against AV11. The numbers are slightly worse with the Razorshark. I'm happy with wrecking AV11 vehicles, making them explode is a bonus. Oh, and since - as I pointed out above - all the Tau flyers have turreted weapons, I don't really care what the front armor of a vehicle is. Glancing a Russ to death from the rear is just as easy as glancing out a Rhino.

Edit: To make the numbers comparable with the anti-flyer numbers below, a Sun Shark in Rapid Fire range, without NML support or Seekers, has a 20% chance to glance out a 3HP AV11 vehicle in one turn, with an 18% chance of exploding it in one turn. Getting 3 glances or better, without NML support but with Seekers, is a 52% chance of getting 2+ glances from the drones and TLMP, and a 55% chance of getting at least one glance from the seekers, which gives me about a 64% chance of glancing it out in one turn.

You can indeed kill hordes with it.

Within rapid fire range you kill about 3 models with the guns if the horde isn't in cover, and maybe another 3-5 if you can line up a good shot with the bomb (which is easier said than done). For 160+ points that's an absolute joke.

Getting 6-8 kills per turn isn't bad at all for a flyer that's "an absolute joke" at anti-horde. Pretty much as good as any unit relying on large blasts to do the job, quite frankly.

You can indeed kill other flyers with it.

Not any of the ones that matter. Against AV 11 it has limited effectiveness (especially since the AV 11 flyer that matters doesn't really care about most damage results) and against AV 12 (which is the most important) it's almost worthless.

As I noted above, I don't care about what the front AV of a flyer is, I'm not shooting it in the front with my Tau flyers. I'm shooting it in the nice, soft, squishy AV10 rear. You know, where TL S7 shots are just about as good as TL S9 shots are against frontal AV12. I get about a 56% chance to get 3 or more glances or better from a bomber against AV10 (with about a 33.6% chance to explode it), and about the same chance to explode AV12 with 3x TL BS3 Lascannons. The chance of a Vendetta glancing out another frontal AV12 flyer in a single turn of shooting is pretty minimal (about 12.5%). That math tells me that the Tau flyers are better at air to air than Vendettas are, since they have the same chance to outright destroy it via an explosion, and a far far better chance to just glance it to death in a single round. Note that this doesn't include the Seekers off the bomber, since you likely wouldn't get shots off with them against rear armor on flyers.

If you can name a single Tau unit that can do all of those things as well or better, and doesn't compete with other things in the same FOC slot that you need, then you'll have proven your point.

Why do I need to provide a single unit? Why can't I do it the right way and bring specialists that handle 1-2 roles but do them very well? Why am I stuck with a generalist unit that can't do anything effectively?

Because my argument is, as I've already said, that this unit can do several things well in a single FOC slot at a reasonable price. I'm not arguing that it's better at any role than a specialist unit. If your argument is that any unit is useless if it's not maximally specialized to perform at a single role, then that's a different argument than you've previously been advancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Out of curiosity, what are your Best Tau Units for anti-air, taking out AV10/11 vehicles, and for taking out hordes? The ones that would be replacing the Sun Shark / Razorshark in a competitive list?

Veskrashen wrote:
With the bomber, your numbers are correct assuming the Networked ML doesn't hit, about 2.4 glances or better if it does.

You're right. I also ignored the fact that the drones are only BS 1, so it's not a very significant improvement if you include the 50% chance of a markerlight hit.

That also ignores the two seekers, which add another hit on average at S8.

The seekers are one-shot weapons, and only have a 45* arc directly in front of the flyer, which means you can either drop a bomb and/or fly past a target to shoot it in the back, or you can shoot at front/side armor but get your missiles.

Of course, if I'm shooting Rhinos, I'm going after their AV10 sides and rear, not their AV11 front - which increases the odds I'll glance it out.

Rhinos are AV 11 on the side.

Oh, and since - as I pointed out above - all the Tau flyers have turreted weapons, I don't really care what the front armor of a vehicle is.

So you're ignoring the limits on flyer movement? Because if you aren't even with turret guns you aren't guaranteed to get rear armor.

Getting 6-8 kills per turn isn't bad at all for a flyer that's "an absolute joke" at anti-horde. Pretty much as good as any unit relying on large blasts to do the job, quite frankly.

It's only 6-8 IF you can drop the bomb, and that's easier said than done. If you can't set up a good bombing run, or have to fly off the table next turn because you bombed something, your anti-horde effectiveness drops significantly. So you have a mediocre unit that requires the right circumstances just to be mediocre instead of awful. I'm not impressed.

I'm shooting it in the nice, soft, squishy AV10 rear.

Only if you ignore the flyer movement rules.

If your argument is that any unit is useless if it's not maximally specialized to perform at a single role, then that's a different argument than you've previously been advancing.

That's not my argument, and the Tau flyers are FAR from "maximally specialized". They're mediocre at best at any of their individual roles.

Out of curiosity, what are your Best Tau Units for anti-air, taking out AV10/11 vehicles, and for taking out hordes?

Dual missile pod crisis suits or rail rifle Broadsides with velocity trackers for anti-vehicle/AA, Riptides, fire warriors, and dual missile pod crisis suits for hordes.

I've edited my post for some better probabilities, which addresses your seekers vs no seekers issue. Drones are BS2, not BS1. And no, I don't have to ignore flyer movement rules to get rear armor shots on stuff, and no, I don't have to fly off the board after a successful bombing run. You are again making all kinds of totally unsupported and unreasonable assumptions.

As for your selected units:
You can run 2 Dual MP Crisis with VTs, or 2 Railsides with VTs for the same cost as a Sun Shark. The Crisis against frontal AV12 flyers gives you a 13.5% chance to glance it out in 1 turn, with a dismal chance to explode it. If you're talking TLMP with VTs instead, you can field 3, with a 16.9% chance to glance out frontal AV12 flyers. You can similarly run 2 Railsides, for about a 23.4% chance to explode it in one turn. You will note that all of those numbers are significantly worse than a Sun Shark without Seekers against rear AV10. If you stipulate TL Plasma Rifles on the Railsides within Rapid Fire range, you get about a 60% chance to glance out frontal AV12 in one turn. That's the only case where any of the three units you named does better than the bomber against rear AV10.

Against AV11, Dual MP Crisis have a 32% chance to glance it out, 19.6% chance to explode. 3 TLMP Crisis gives 40.4% and 22.5% respectively. Railsides get a 34% chance to explode, and 91% chance to glance it out. Railsides are the clear winner here, with bombers second and Crisis third.

Against hordes, things get more interesting. Riptide loadouts have a lot to do with it, but if you assume 3-5 dead from a large blast template, you're likely getting 3 from the SMS, so that puts you back at 6-8 kills for a higher price than the Sun Shark. 2 Dual MP Crisis can't kill more than 8 hordes, since they can't fire more than 8 shots total, so at best they're tied - with more like 4 kills on average. 18 FWs is a better choice - outside of rapid fire range, though, and you're looking at only 7.5 kills on average - again, what you see from a Riptide or Sun Shark bomber.

So how, again, does the bomber suck so bad when your optimal units are either worse or not significantly better?

Veskrashen wrote:
Drones are BS2, not BS1.

They're passengers moving at cruising speed. BS 1.

And no, I don't have to ignore flyer movement rules to get rear armor shots on stuff

I said you have to ignore flyer movement rules to guarantee rear armor. Obviously you can get rear armor sometimes, but you can't just assume that you're always shooting at AV 10.

I don't have to fly off the board after a successful bombing run.

Not always, but often. Once you play a few games with bombs you'll realize that using them effectively often means flying off the table next turn or leaving your flyer in a position where it has nothing appealing to shoot. There's a reason my IG flyers no longer carry bombs.

You will note that all of those numbers are significantly worse than a Sun Shark without Seekers against rear AV10.

Now do the numbers for the bomber against AV 12 since you can't guarantee rear armor.

Against hordes, things get more interesting. Riptide loadouts have a lot to do with it, but if you assume 3-5 dead from a large blast template, you're likely getting 3 from the SMS, so that puts you back at 6-8 kills for a higher price than the Sun Shark.

But more consistent kills, since it doesn't depend on setting up an effective bombing run. And, unlike the flyers, it can shoot starting on turn 1 instead of turn 2-3 (and often turn 3-4 for the bomb). The same is true for the other anti-horde options,

So how, again, does the bomber suck so bad when your optimal units are either worse or not significantly better?

Because you're making unrealistic assumptions that favor the bomber.

You're assuming that I'm flying on the board and engaging rear armor the same turn; that's not something I'm assuming at all. You're also assuming that there will be nothing on the board I can get rear armor shots on during the first turn my flyer is on the board, which I would dispute as flyers come on during turns 2/3 on average.

You're right that the ground-based options can engage from Turn 1 onwards. That's also irrelevant. We've been comparing how many kills per turn various units get; total kills per game is obviously determined by how many turns that unit survives to dish out damage. Ground units exposed to fire from Turn 1 onwards, especially those tasty points-efficient Fire Warriors, tend to start taking losses a lot earlier and become combat ineffective a lot earlier than flyers do. You'd need to lay out your assumptions as to how long each unit would last and why in order to get a better idea of total kills per game.

Stats against frontal AV12: Using both seekers and assuming no NML support, I get a 71% chance to glance frontal AV12 out in 1 turn, with about an 18.5% chance to explode it. Which again beats both Crisis teams and the Railsides with TL Plasma Rifles inside of Rapid Fire range.

I find the assumption that a competitive player would be totally unable to get a shot against AV10 rear armor without having to move more than 18" per game. I don't find the assumption that I'd be able to get a bombing run in unreasonable either. Of course, I could simply choose to take a Razorshark instead, and the majority of my movement, range and positioning problems are solved for a slight decrease in accuracy. Of course, I'll also be throwing S8 AP4 pieplates around rather than S5 AP5 bombs, so... there's that to consider.

Again, show me the math where your optimal units are so much more amazingly better than a bomber or fighter that there is no reason ever to take them. Show me the empirical evidence that they'll never be able to use their speed and the advantage of turreted weapons to get rear armor shots, Show me how your ground based solutions can survive longer than my flyers against an optimized competitive list, such that having them on the board turn 1 gives them an overwhelming advantage that can't be matched.

Or are you just going to continue to throw around 1 liners with no evidence to support your arguments and no math to back up your assumptions?

Veskrashen wrote:
You're assuming that I'm flying on the board and engaging rear armor the same turn; that's not something I'm assuming at all.

Ok, so you delay even more. How exactly are we supposed to be impressed by an anti-vehicle unit that can't engage vehicles effectively until turn 3-4 (at which point those Rhinos have already done their job)?

You're right that the ground-based options can engage from Turn 1 onwards. That's also irrelevant.

And this is what I mean about making favorable assumptions. You're looking at the bomber's performance in a single turn under ideal conditions instead of looking at the big picture.

Stats against frontal AV12: Using both seekers and assuming no NML support, I get a 71% chance to glance frontal AV12 out in 1 turn, with about an 18.5% chance to explode it.

Please post the detailed math behind the 71% number.

(And don't forget that your drones are only BS 1.)

Again, show me the math where your optimal units are so much more amazingly better than a bomber or fighter that there is no reason ever to take them.

A unit doesn't have to be amazingly better for there to be no reason to take the alternative.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Competitive lists get more attention because they're really the only ones that merit discussion.

I don't need feedback to help me build a friendly list. I pick the units I like, throw them together and have fun.

If I'm preparing for a tournament, I'm going to get as much input as possible. I'll talk to people, ask for feedback on my list, play practice games, research and all that jazz.

When I'm going out to game, I just bring 2 lists: competitive and friendly. I'll ask my opponent what sort of game he's looking for and pick the appropriate list. Boom, done.

This guy answered the question perfectly.

Actually, he didn't, because like all advocates of "competitive discussion only", he's focused exclusively on the list, and totally ignores the actual frigging game. Same as the guy up above who insists that "non-competitive" means "bad".

I don't build two types of lists and condescend to my opponent by offering to take a list which is "going easy" from my perspective, I build the list I want to build based on models and fluff, and then I try to devise interesting and effective tactics for the tabletop.

Frankly, I think it's quite hilarious how many competitive types are coming into this thread and claiming what awesome generals they are when most of them respond to a unit being less-than-optimal by simply not taking it, instead relying on spamming the least-balanced units they can find in their chosen 'dex.

I feel as though I need to chime in here in support of both what Yodrim and Veskrashen (before the tangent into Tau flyers) are getting at. If all the competitive types had their way, Warhammer and 40k would be a very boring game. I've read and seen enough games that a tactful armchair general can use "no-optimal" units to great effectiveness despite what those like Peregrine, Chumbalaya or The Captain would make you believe.

I may not be the best player but using the most optimal units can often lead to a very stagnant game and does not always bring the assured victory. As a guard player I have my fair share of flyers, but I had used them when they were just skimmers in what would have been seen as sub-optimal becasue I wasn't playing spam chimera mech lists, but hybrd-foot and fast skimmer list. Honestly I got to say that the competitive doesn't automatically mean you can only take these select units from your codex and play. But thats just my two cents.

Fist I want to say:
Thanks Peregrine and Veskrashen for completely derailing my thread that I was enjoying seeing everyone’s thoughts on this subject.
I have to say at least Veskrashen seems to get it.
Peregrine, you seem to se everything in Yes and No

So let me ask the Question in very simple Terms one more

So Does Every List Have To Be “Competitive”?
O Yes
O No

Is It Ok To Take “Sub-Par” Units From Time To Time?
O Yes
O No

Now can we can we move on?

Thanks Peregrine and Veskrashen for completely derailing my thread that I was enjoying seeing everyone’s thoughts on this subject.
I have to say at least Veskrashen seems to get it.
Peregrine, you seem to se everything in Yes and No

Wouldn't be the first time, he has a rather..abrasive personality.

Anyone who plays this game in cut-throat tournaments and actually takes it seriously is a fool. This game is a collection of random crap that some donkey-cave like Ward thought was "cool" and/or driven by GW's need to sell plastic.

If you are serious about competition, you should play a game with a tighter ruleset that actually rewards competence.

I'm lucky that no one in my group plays like this.

We basically just take whatever we like, and make a list out of it. I have a friend who themes heavily, often to the detriment of his army (his Dark Eldar is mostly Wyches in Raiders, Bloodbrides with a Succubus in a Venom, and Scourges and Hellions). He just likes playing a Wych army.

With my Tyranids, I basically find the models I think are badass, and use them. Hence why I use Warriors, Hormagaunts and Carnifexes. My brother makes themed lists as well, again, often to his detriment, and another friend just, like me, puts together a bunch of badass models.

We've got one friend who tries to make competitive lists, but generally just ends up making lists more mediocre than most netlists and also plays them terribly.

What we end up with is a very beer and pretzels environment. No one cares if they win or lose (except the wannabe competitive player), we just have fun games of 40k while we catch up after not seeing each other for a few weeks/months.

For Anpu, the correct answer is:

"It depends..."

For me, it's all about setting and opponent. I have been playing wargames for 2.5 years. I started in an environment that was you either pushed their crap in or they pushed yours in. Period. Lists were always competitive, discussions were competitive and we were out for blood. And then we went out for Mexican afterwards. So it's both a game, a mind clash, and a good time.

I then moved to my current area and proceeded to walk through about 4~5 tournaments as the first place person. I steam rolled the meta. (Wolves, 5E, who knew, right?! [/sarcasm]) So I paired back my attitude and list building for awhile and then 6E hit and everything changed and everyone sucked again. I haven't been the same since and got WRECKED at Feast of Blades invitational. But hey, I still won one of the painting competitions (actually two...). So I found my new outlet in competition within the hobby side and I have toned down... a bit.

If I play with new players or "casuals," I'll fool around with lists. If I know who I want to play against is bringing the heat, I'm going to bring the dirtiest thing I can think of at that time. We pair off duke it, blood is spilled, tears are shed... and then we go on with w/e as normal. (I just mad at bad dice rolls and not players ) Even a good general can still perform outstandingly with a "bad list" knowing how to compensate for weaknesses of the units given.

A truly competitive scene will have a constantly changing meta that isn't all netlists. Proxies will happen, things will be verified, and maybe someone rolls in and stomps everyone. All the lists adapt and the game stays fun, competitive, and we all have a good time. Some guy is TROUNCING people with a Tyranids Psychic Choir list. I bring out a harder Wolves or Crons list to pair off. Game's more balanced. I don't blame him for bringing the psychic choir list. Maybe those are the models he enjoys. Maybe he realizes that's about the only good build that codex has. I just take it case by case and enjoy all the parts of the hobby.

Personality type also plays a large role in how these games are perceived. There is not right or wrong; just poor situations brought upon by a lack of proper, gentlemanly (or ladylike) discourse prior to dice off.

Oh, and as for actual lists, I only buy the better models because I have limited funds to spend on plastic dudes, but want multiple armies instead of one massive army out of one dex. I'm going to invest in models that I both like visually and are competitively solid (hopefully both). I could see wrecking house with a good IG army, but I really don't want to paint IG Maybe a DKK army some day, but meh?

I'm rambling, sorry folks, TL;DR: Everyone has a different perception of fun based on how they were introduced to this hobby or why the started it. Personality also plays a significant portion. At the end of the day, no one has a bad time when we be grown ups and vocalize our intent prior to playing a game. As always, communication is the key to success!

 Omegus wrote:
Anyone who plays this game in cut-throat tournaments and actually takes it seriously is a fool.

Seems a bit rude.

But true. This game is not made for that kind of setting, hence the slew of arbitrary house rules at every tournament. It's really not that serious.

 Omegus wrote:
But true. This game is not made for that kind of setting, hence the slew of arbitrary house rules at every tournament. It's really not that serious.

The game is made to be compatible with competition, and "for fun" games.

Hence the inclusion of book-missions, rules for scoring units, victory conditions, etc.

If the game wasn't made for competition, the mission section of the rulebook would just say "Make stuff up and have fun with it."

Then they failed. But if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit they were never really trying.

 Anpu42 wrote:
So let me ask the Question in very simple Terms one more

But that's not the question you're asking. Obviously nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to only play with the most competitive lists and never even consider using anything else. What I disagree with is your attitude that playing non-competitive lists is in any way a superior way of playing the game, and your assumption that competitive-only players need to justify their preferences to you. Feel free to play with whatever units you want, just don't insist that you're somehow better than anyone because of that choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So let me ask the Question in very simple Terms one more

But that's not the question you're asking. Obviously nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to only play with the most competitive lists and never even consider using anything else. What I disagree with is your attitude that playing non-competitive lists is in any way a superior way of playing the game, and your assumption that competitive-only players need to justify their preferences to you. Feel free to play with whatever units you want, just don't insist that you're somehow better than anyone because of that choice.

they probably feel superior because their sense of selfworth isnt linked to winning a toy soldiers game with bad unbalanced rules.

they might also feel superior because they get to buy, paint and enjoy models that they actually like instead of spamming dumblooking flying croissants or whatever it is that the competitive crowd does

good stuff will just get nerfed into oblivion by GW later anyway when they decide to switch what the "winning" thing is so that they can sell more models.

kb305 wrote:

they probably feel superior because their sense of selfworth isnt linked to winning a toy soldiers game with bad unbalanced rules.

they might also feel superior because they get to buy, paint and enjoy models that they actually like instead of spamming dumblooking flying croissants or whatever it is that the competitive crowd does

good stuff will just get nerfed into oblivion by GW later anyway when they decide to switch what the "winning" thing is so that they can sell more models.

The tone of your post sounds overly harsh. I came from a competitive setting and I enjoy the game competitively. Your post, as written, feels to belittle my enjoyment of having a difficult match between two individuals with hard lists. Are the rules simply unbalanced because the units you like aren't "ZOMG, SO OP?!"

What if a player absolutely loves the Necron Nightscythe/Doomscythe model and takes a fistful of them? Are they now suddenly an awful person ripe for degradation and berating comments because they wanted a Necron Air Force?

And the final state is always true, new stuff comes out and it's good. Some new stuff comes out and it's bad (see most of the DA new units). I think you're overly taking what you enjoy from this hobby and implying it's the correct way. If someone enjoys being tournament capable, buys a new army every 6~18 months and attends the Grand Tournaments, and that's what they enjoy, what's it to you? The competitive players probably buy far more models than the non-competitive to stay in top form. Other hobby focused people I know just buy ALL the kits to have complete armies.

I think you should reign in the internet anger, unless I'm completely missing your tone and intent.

 Omegus wrote:
Anyone who plays this game in cut-throat tournaments and actually takes it seriously is a fool.

People think competitive players are the gak-heads of this game, but I think it's the fluff heads who complain that their all Ogryn Army can't compete. I agree with Peregrine. It's not the question that's the problem, it's the attitude. At least competitive players actually use the rules rather than complain about them incessantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kb305 wrote:
they probably feel superior because their sense of selfworth isnt linked to winning a toy soldiers game with bad unbalanced rules.

What an angry and incorrect assumption that is. Just because I enjoy a good contest between hard as nails armies doesn't mean I derive my self-worth from the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Feel free to play with whatever units you want, just don't insist that you're somehow better than anyone because of that choice.

Exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
The tone of your post sounds overly harsh. I came from a competitive setting and I enjoy the game competitively. Your post, as written, feels to belittle my enjoyment of having a difficult match between two individuals with hard lists. Are the rules simply unbalanced because the units you like aren't "ZOMG, SO OP?!"

Exalted.

You know what's funny? I've never once met a competitive player that has complained about people being too fluffy, yet the competitive-types are always the ones that get labeled as jerks, etc. The only player's i've seen that have been outright dismissive of others have been the "fluffier" players. It's a bit ironic, I think, that the players who are supposedly in it for the "fun" are the ones I most often see complaining or ostracizing others.

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with. Why is it that you casual folks care so much about what us competitive folks play?

LValx wrote:
You know what's funny? I've never once met a competitive player that has complained about people being too fluffy, yet the competitive-types are always the ones that get labeled as jerks, etc. The only player's i've seen that have been outright dismissive of others have been the "fluffier" players. It's a bit ironic, I think, that the players who are supposedly in it for the "fun" are the ones I most often see complaining or ostracizing others.

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with. Why is it that you casual folks care so much about what us competitive folks play?

Preach it, brother. Preach it.

LValx wrote:

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with.

Could they?

 Crimson wrote:

LValx wrote:

Competitive players could care less about what the friendly, casual gamer decides to play with.

Could they?