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.

LValx wrote:


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?

yeah and isn't it funny how all fluff players say they win and beat tournament lists all the time and dont realy have problems wining with their own fluff lists. they say they dont care about wining , so what is the problem with them losing ? they say they win anyway , no matter what their opponent bring .
To be honest I don't know what is their problem . Maybe they think people with good lists dont have fun playing them and they want to save us or force us to play the way they want .

quote=Makumba 523178 5556541 null]

LValx wrote:


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?

yeah and isn't it funny how all fluff players say they win and beat tournament lists all the time and dont realy have problems wining with their own fluff lists. they say they dont care about wining , so what is the problem with them losing ? they say they win anyway , no matter what their opponent bring .
To be honest I don't know what is their problem . Maybe they think people with good lists dont have fun playing them and they want to save us or force us to play the way they want .

I just play 40k when I feel like rolling dice, having random gak happen, and getting wasted. I save the competitive mindset for real games like Warmachine.

I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

Sure the fluffy players might complain about losing once in a while, but at least they are fun to play with!

I don't mind playing a non-optimised list against a fully optimised one. I see it as;
a) A challenge. There's nothing better than taking what's considered a sub-par list and holding your own/giving a tough-as-nails fight to a so-called top tier list.

b) I've sunk god knows how much $$$ into my army already. Not to mention the time and effort to build/convert & paint it. I'll be damned if I let some hype like net-listing stop me from at least looking good while I get creamed!

c) My army is mono-Tzeentch Daemons. I don't ever actually lose! Everything that happened simply went 100% according to plan!
(okay, that's just my excuse for my abysmal dice rolling... I mean, I do routinely fail like 70% or more of my 3+ saves, and only pass about 50% of my Ld10 psychic tests. I gave-up o nthe idea of winning a long time ago - Tzeentch simply likes his favorite jokes apparently)


Now what I can't stand and hate more than anything, are people who plonk down army lists that play at you, instead of playing with you.

For example, the old Derp Quake shinanigans whereby a GK could very effectively prevent my Daemons from ever hitting the table.
Or the donkeycave who knows you have limited anti-air and thus brings out their Flying French Bakery to gain an added advantage over an already non-optimised list.
Or by the same token, players who field highly cut-throat lists, but then use very cut-throat tactics in what's supposed to be a casual, (ie: non-tournament), game.

Why bother playing the game at all in situations like that? You know damn well for example that your 1 Quad-gun + 1 Dev unit w/Flak Missiles can't stop 6-8 'Cron flyers. Or why bother continuing when you're playing a more casual Assault Marine based list and the IG player just castles up in the back corner, AFTER setting up the terrain to their complete advantage and then shells you with 3 Manticores?

It's pointless stupidity and crap like that IMHO has no place outside of Tournaments, unless you and your opponent have agreed to a no-holds-bar competitive game.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

Hm, worded that wrong.

Nearly half of the major competitive/tournament type players that were around here were pretty much WAAC TFG's when it came to playing, and it pretty much ruined my enjoyment of the game for a while. I haven't gone back to the stores in a long time though, maybe they've hopefully cooled down.

It pretty much soured my view on those who just want to win without actually enjoying the game itself.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

Exactly

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

This attitude is the problem that causes the dichotomy between groups.

Hm, worded that wrong.

Nearly half of the major competitive/tournament type players that were around here were pretty much WAAC TFG's when it came to playing, and it pretty much ruined my enjoyment of the game for a while. I haven't gone back to the stores in a long time though, maybe they've hopefully cooled down.

It pretty much soured my view on those who just want to win without actually enjoying the game itself.

But what if they (we) enjoy the game itself by using it as a platform for some social competition?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

Sure the fluffy players might complain about losing once in a while, but at least they are fun to play with!

because the fluff player with his bad army that starts rolling his eyes after you put your second unit on the table and moaning how broken/OP/WAAC your sob are is not TFG.

Makumba wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I probably wouldn't mind if the competitive players weren't usually WAAC TFG's.

Sure the fluffy players might complain about losing once in a while, but at least they are fun to play with!

because the fluff player with his bad army that starts rolling his eyes after you put your second unit on the table and moaning how broken/OP/WAAC your sob are is not TFG.

I've clarified what I meant a few posts ago. I mainly had those within my local area.

But what if they (we) enjoy the game itself by using it as a platform for some social competition?

Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

The thing is, non-competitive players don't really ever encounter it, but fluff players do this too.

They'll throw fits when they lose, complain and whine about your list, and challenge you to rematches with tailored lists just to get even because they think you're "too cheesy".

WAAC and TFG has nothing to do with being competitive/fluffy.

Both groups have their TFG's, it's just that usually if you're in Group A, you only ever encounter the TFG's from group B, and vice versa. This leads to group A thinking all TFG's are in group B, and again, Vice versa.

-TheCaptain

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

The thing is, non-competitive players don't really ever encounter it, but fluff players do this too.

They'll throw fits when they lose, complain and whine about your list, and challenge you to rematches with tailored lists just to get even because they think you're "too cheesy".

WAAC and TFG has nothing to do with being competitive/fluffy.

Both groups have their TFG's, it's just that usually if you're in Group A, you only ever encounter the TFG's from group B, and vice versa. This leads to group A thinking all TFG's are in group B, and again, Vice versa.

-TheCaptain

I know, but it's hard to separate them after a long time of dealing with specific players in that category. Kinda like a first thought response when I had gotten used to it over that long period of time, gotta break that habit.

Course I'm a fluffy player, but generally in so far as it's competitive enough, the only time I really get annoyed is when the codex can't accurately allow for it to be done because of it being bad overall. (Like trying to run Thousand Sons for example in any meaningful way. ). I mostly get annoyed because I know if they actually gave meaningful errata they could make them useful, and allow for a codex to become balanced and useful to all who use them.

Course I have a few comp players as friends now, one of which runs necrons and has never yet lost, but we always have fun and he's pretty cool about enjoying the game rather then just the win.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Then it's fine, these were the sort of players who would throw a fit if they lost, and were the type that gladly gloated for quite sometime over their Victory, how horrible you were at playing. (Even if they won by exactly one point more, not a table), and generally they made every effort to cheat, "accidentally" nudging your and their models, where they would be out of place once they put them back, being in a far better position then they were before for them, and all sorts of other WAAC cheating tactics.

I don't mind if your a very competitive player, but being a cheater in combination with being a complete donkey-cave about it makes it hard to actually enjoy playing the game, cause win or lose, they soured it.

The thing is, non-competitive players don't really ever encounter it, but fluff players do this too.

They'll throw fits when they lose, complain and whine about your list, and challenge you to rematches with tailored lists just to get even because they think you're "too cheesy".

WAAC and TFG has nothing to do with being competitive/fluffy.

Both groups have their TFG's, it's just that usually if you're in Group A, you only ever encounter the TFG's from group B, and vice versa. This leads to group A thinking all TFG's are in group B, and again, Vice versa.

-TheCaptain

Have an exalt my good sir.

To be blunt- in my humble experience, most club based enviroments tend to have a competitive streak, whch results in most people developing lists that can 'compete'

What is beginning to become an annoyance here, in having branched out into other systems, and playing in a warmahordes journeyman league. Is how silly may of these arguments are, and how on the interwebs such a vast gulf exists between the two camps yet most of the 40k players i have met barring one (who seems to deny the actual reality of club gaming...), seem to develop lists to some that might seem 'semi-competitive' yet the folks like using said lists...

I always expect my opponent to give it his(or her...) best shot, and for that they earn my gratitude and going anywhere new i would expect the same and prepare accordingly.

or just play warmahordes instead where everyone knows that its competitive

 Krellnus wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Awesome Stuff
-TheCaptain

Have an exalt my good sir.

Have two.

I prefer to bring a hard list so that I don't have an easy excuse when I lose.

I think it's harder to determine if it's a fair fight if both guys are using non-optimized lists because they aren't trying their best to win. If one guy loses, he could just say "oh, your list was harder than mine. I intentionally made my list weaker than you intentionally made yours."

I swear some guys make bad lists on purpose just so they can complain about the other person/GW/balance/the world.

I also prefer to play other people that try to win, (although maybe not at all cost?). I have fun when I play regardless of how good or bad it goes because I just like my army that much. If we are doing a campaign, I always try to challenge the guys with the best records.

I think we are getting off track once more.

The original question reworded a little bit: Why do you Need to Always Play a Competitive List in every game you play or is it ok to Sometimes pull out a list with non-completive units?

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think we are getting off track once more.

The original question reworded a little bit: Why do you Need to Always Play a Competitive List in every game you play or is it ok to Sometimes pull out a list with non-completive units?

Depends on the opponent, meta, and opponent's request.

If I'm playing against a good, competitive opponent, you bet I'm playing a competitive list.

If I'm playing in a competitive meta, you bet I'm playing a competitive list, and assuming my opponent is doing the same.

However, if I'm playing against a bad or fluffy or new player, I'll play a non-competitive list. If I'm playing a narrative campaign or in a fluffy/non-comp meta, I'll play a non-competitive list. if I'm in a competitive meta, or playing against a good or competitive opponent, but they say "hey, lets play fluffy lists. Or hey, I'm trying out a fun list", I'll use a non-competitive list.

But non-competitive players shouldn't automatically expect non-competitive lists from other players. especially against competitive players, or in competitive metas.

It never hurts to let your opponent know what you want out of the game you're about to play.

-TheCaptain

Yes? No? I mean, generally I try to make the most competitive army I can, given the realities of my situation. For example, when I'm at home, I play Mech IG. It's huge. It takes up two Battlefoam 720s. It cost me an arm and a leg, but I do enjoy playing it, it's painted fairly well, it follows a theme, and it's what I play if I want to win.

I often travel for work, so I wanted a very low model count army that I could transport via airplane in carry-on. I went with a 27-model Deathwing army for this. It's as competitive as I could make a Deathwing army, but it's definitely not the best army you could make using Codex: Dark Angels. Half of it is also Dark Vengeance terminators, so the total cost of the army was ~$200. It's not competitive at all though and, though it was fun to paint, I would never bring it to a paid tournament.

 Anpu42 wrote:

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=

I like this post. A lot.

Im competitive. I think people who are want to "practice", because most competitive people learned in sports and in other arena's that practice is the only way to master a skill and stay sharp with it. So we probably tend to play tourney lists to that end. Saves time having to transfer army stuff to and fro the display board also.

Having said that... I dedicated my blog to the idea that you CAN win with unorthodox tactics and units. You may lose a game or two INITIALLY while you figure out the way around the "limitations" of the unit (and find unexpected gems in their strengths), but you find that the meta in general is not very flexible. Just READ some of the threads here! Such lesser often used units do surprisingly well just because no one really has a "hard counter" to it (Gawds I hate that term but its out there, so...), It is surprising how much ingenuity we have when we tap into it and dont let ourselves get trapped by stinkin' thinkin' negative thoughts and apply ourselves to the problem.

So I think you CAN win, even win often, and yes with units that aren't favored by the meta. And if you care nothing about losing (which IS different than liking towin which we all do) then you may become more skillful for having chosen to play your way. I think it's great.

Just don't be hypocritical at some point and decide that your opponent is "doing it wrong" by not playing weaker lists. For some, money is too tight to experiment. For others, their gaming time is so precious and rare that losing is a bigger deal to them (and rightly so in those cases, as no one likes to lose all the time and "all the time" for some people is the once-a-month they even GET to play).

So I kind of allow for a lot of lattitude and try not to be too harch of other peoples objectives in bringing a competitive army. Many times it has to do with more than just wanting to win.

I know for me personally, I like to switch back and forth between hyper competative lists and themed forces based on my oponant. Some people in my local gaming club have big egos and it is fun for me to crush them with hyper competative armies. Some people play just to have fun and those people get the fun fluffy lists with the occasional useless choices. Nothing wrong with running both I think.