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.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like you're missing my point. Some people don't care about running the very few competitive options that are available. Some people (myself) would rather run stuff that's fun to use.

This means that I'm like a kid in a candy store with Warhammer 40,000. There's tens of thousands of options (probably), and I get to pick the ones I like best for a truly unique army and hobby experience.

Oh I understand, I just disagree

Here's the thing - you talk about folks only using the top options, as being distinct from other stuff that's 'fun'. Why must there be different levels. Why can't they be one and the same? Why are they mutually exclusive?

40k has lots of options, but with a lot of them you simply suffer. Unless you build in house rules, arbitrary social pressure as to what's 'ok', and the rely on strict self policing and enforcement. Why can't I just roll up, and play a game? You feel like a kid in a candy store with all the options in 40k and fair deuce, if it's what you enjoy, go fir it. Me? I feel simple frustration as so much of what I'd like yo do simply isnt practical. I simply dislike all the terms ad conditions that are associated with both the game and some members of the community when it cones to putting my stuff on the board (stuff, as opposed to 'casual' stuff or 'competitive' stuff, and yet know it'll still be good) and having a go
.

They're mutually exclusive because in a game with 10,000 options, it's simply impossible to balance them all, I would argue. I haven't seen a game that does it well yet, without reducing the number of options.

I don't suffer, despite using a crapton of the 'suboptimal' options. I don't know why you would say one 'suffers'. One might not win lots of games, but that's hardly 'suffering.' As for the arbitrary social pressure and whatnot, I personally haven't faced any of that and so can't comment, but your group sounds like a bunch of jerks.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I feel that Warmachine, lacking as many options, is basically the same thing as 40k if you limited yourself to only taking good options, i.e. watering down the 10,000 odd options to only Tau with allied Chaos (or whathaveyou).
.

Heh, we wont be agreeing here, but fair deuce. If you ask my honest opinion, I'll say this: Bad options aren't worth the paper they're printed on. They're an illusion, if you ask me, and their presence adds nothing. I'd rather have ten good, valid options than two or three great, and ninety terrible ones that I have to rely on tedious terms and conditions in order to be fieldable in the first pace. like I said, the illusion of choice.

And to be fair, warmachine has a lot more valid options than tau allied with chaos

Well, we'll agree to disagree. I think that options are always good, because some people like me will field the 'bad options' and have a blast doing it. Which makes the paper they're printed on worth it, in my opinion. Their presents adds an otherwise unavailable option, again one with which some people somewhere might be enjoying the hell out of themselves with, as I do.

And anything in the game rules is fieldable - you don't need terms and conditions to field a Techmarine or a Leman Russ, despite them being 'subpar.' Again, you may not win every game, but eh, no biggie. I got to field some badass-looking, well-painted, fun units.

You're right, the Tau + Chaos was a bit unfair - my bad

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And I recognize that warmachine players play pickup games, but every time I bring my warmachine to the FLGS I get told that they're practicing for a tournament and I am unwelcome.

That's... Kinda harsh. And it's not very welcoming. I'm glad my group isn't like that. Me? Yeah, I'd have a go and try and tempt you with that game of infinity while I'm at it. Cheers

I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

Edit to add: Balance isn't trivial to achieve, but it is possible to get near balanced internal to a codex at least.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

That we can all agree with, but that wasn't the point against which zweischneid and I are arguing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

That we can all agree with, but that wasn't the point against which zweischneid and I are arguing.

That's not how he presented his argument to me at all. Not how it came across anyway.

A better written rule set benefits everyone. A more balanced rule set benefits everyone. Narrative games (typically) make up all kinds of rules anyway, true?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

That we can all agree with, but that wasn't the point against which zweischneid and I are arguing.

That's not how he presented his argument to me at all. Not how it came across anyway.

A better written rule set benefits everyone. A more balanced rule set benefits everyone. Narrative games (typically) make up all kinds of rules anyway, true?

A better written rule set benefits everyone.

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I normally would agree that simply changing the points value of units is required, except that 40k has SO MANY options that you may find a time when something should be "worth more than a Storm Shield for this one guy, but less than a Plasma Cannon for this other guy" which means you'd need a finer-grained system than the already ridiculously fine-grained system we have. It would take an entire overhaul, imo, which inevitably would lead to some options getting slashed.
And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

rigeld2 wrote:

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Because every game is narrative for me. I just started writing down online battlereports - you can see them in my army's thread. But I've written offline narratives of every. single. battle. for years.

rigeld2 wrote:

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I normally would agree that simply changing the points value of units is required, except that 40k has SO MANY options that you may find a time when something should be "worth more than a Storm Shield for this one guy, but less than a Plasma Cannon for this other guy" which means you'd need a finer-grained system than the already ridiculously fine-grained system we have. It would take an entire overhaul, imo, which inevitably would lead to some options getting slashed.

I don't think you will - or that if you do, you could change other point values or stats for the base unit and not remove options.

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

rigeld2 wrote:

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Because every game is narrative for me. I just started writing down online battlereports - you can see them in my army's thread. But I've written offline narratives of every. single. battle. for years.

You're not understanding the distinction then.
Narrative battles are dictated by a story. Your example is making a story from a battle. See the difference?

rigeld2 wrote:

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

Could've fooled me - all I see all over the internet is complaints that some pretty major tournaments are restricting certain rules. Weird.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I normally would agree that simply changing the points value of units is required, except that 40k has SO MANY options that you may find a time when something should be "worth more than a Storm Shield for this one guy, but less than a Plasma Cannon for this other guy" which means you'd need a finer-grained system than the already ridiculously fine-grained system we have. It would take an entire overhaul, imo, which inevitably would lead to some options getting slashed.

I don't think you will - or that if you do, you could change other point values or stats for the base unit and not remove options.

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

Not really. But if you want it for your narrative, and can't have it, I'm either going to tell you your narrative is wrong and then we can discuss that, or I'm going to tell you that the game is wrong. In this case, I decided it narratively wouldn't be such a bad thing to have a Hive Tyrant with an Impaler Cannon, and so I decided the rules were lacking in this case. Now if you asked me why it couldn't have a Lascannon, I would tell you your understanding of the narrative of 40k is flawed.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Because every game is narrative for me. I just started writing down online battlereports - you can see them in my army's thread. But I've written offline narratives of every. single. battle. for years.

You're not understanding the distinction then.
Narrative battles are dictated by a story. Your example is making a story from a battle. See the difference?

Yep. But in order to make a story from the battle, I have to be fighting with units that I consider my own, that I identify with and can understand their motivations for the battle and why they're there. I, personally, wouldn't be able to write a narrative-from-a-battle about a Tyranid army, because I simply do not identify with them enough to understand. My army has to be my own before I can really start writing good narratives (rather than nonsense - anyone can come up with nonsense).

rigeld2 wrote:

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

Could've fooled me - all I see all over the internet is complaints that some pretty major tournaments are restricting certain rules. Weird.

You mean recently? Sure. There's a lot of panic over 2++ rerollable saves. But in general that hasn't been true.

I disagree. Playing Flames of War with my friends in Austin often had rules changes for tournaments. Regular 40k tournaments for some time changed the rules "for the better" through a comp system, until a big fight in fifth put a stop to that (although it's back apparently). The only ruleset I've played that didn't change the rules to make tournaments better was Field of Glory, and that was designed from the ground up to be only a tournament rule set, and in the eyes of the rules a Swiss Pike Block and a Macedonian Phalanx are indistinguishable.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

Not really. But if you want it for your narrative, and can't have it, I'm either going to tell you your narrative is wrong and then we can discuss that, or I'm going to tell you that the game is wrong. In this case, I decided it narratively wouldn't be such a bad thing to have a Hive Tyrant with an Impaler Cannon, and so I decided the rules were lacking in this case. Now if you asked me why it couldn't have a Lascannon, I would tell you your understanding of the narrative of 40k is flawed.

With such a subjective method of "correctness" are you surprised there aren't rules for it?

Yep. But in order to make a story from the battle, I have to be fighting with units that I consider my own, that I identify with and can understand their motivations for the battle and why they're there. I, personally, wouldn't be able to write a narrative-from-a-battle about a Tyranid army, because I simply do not identify with them enough to understand. My army has to be my own before I can really start writing good narratives (rather than nonsense - anyone can come up with nonsense).

And what does that have to do with the rule set? That's still a "casual" game that you wrote a story about. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not really a narrative game.

I disagree. Playing Flames of War with my friends in Austin often had rules changes for tournaments. Regular 40k tournaments for some time changed the rules "for the better" through a comp system, until a big fight in fifth put a stop to that (although it's back apparently). The only ruleset I've played that didn't change the rules to make tournaments better was Field of Glory, and that was designed from the ground up to be only a tournament rule set, and in the eyes of the rules a Swiss Pike Block and a Macedonian Phalanx are indistinguishable.

I'll admit to being ignorant about FoW tournament rules (I've only done historical games with a loose scenario with that system, but I'd like to know more).
I've only been involved in the tournament scene from about mid 2010 - relatively recent I guess.
Also, I don't see comp as "changing the rules of the game".

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

Not really. But if you want it for your narrative, and can't have it, I'm either going to tell you your narrative is wrong and then we can discuss that, or I'm going to tell you that the game is wrong. In this case, I decided it narratively wouldn't be such a bad thing to have a Hive Tyrant with an Impaler Cannon, and so I decided the rules were lacking in this case. Now if you asked me why it couldn't have a Lascannon, I would tell you your understanding of the narrative of 40k is flawed.

With such a subjective method of "correctness" are you surprised there aren't rules for it?

Not really, but if there was an option, I would be happier. It would mean a lot to someone who needs it for their army, however, and I would not be the one to tell them they're wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yep. But in order to make a story from the battle, I have to be fighting with units that I consider my own, that I identify with and can understand their motivations for the battle and why they're there. I, personally, wouldn't be able to write a narrative-from-a-battle about a Tyranid army, because I simply do not identify with them enough to understand. My army has to be my own before I can really start writing good narratives (rather than nonsense - anyone can come up with nonsense).

And what does that have to do with the rule set? That's still a "casual" game that you wrote a story about. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not really a narrative game.

The fewer options there are, the less I identify with the army because the less it is mine uniquely. I don't feel like I'm ever able to write a narrative about a Warmachine battle, for example, because the army isn't mine. I don't really understand the Butcher's motivations well enough to write him to my satisfaction, and I don't really understand why the Behemoth wouldn't deflect a certain blow with a shield - except that he arbitrarily can't have one. If he can't have one for some reason in the background, then sure, whatever. But there really isn't a fluffy reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

I disagree. Playing Flames of War with my friends in Austin often had rules changes for tournaments. Regular 40k tournaments for some time changed the rules "for the better" through a comp system, until a big fight in fifth put a stop to that (although it's back apparently). The only ruleset I've played that didn't change the rules to make tournaments better was Field of Glory, and that was designed from the ground up to be only a tournament rule set, and in the eyes of the rules a Swiss Pike Block and a Macedonian Phalanx are indistinguishable.

I'll admit to being ignorant about FoW tournament rules (I've only done historical games with a loose scenario with that system, but I'd like to know more).
I've only been involved in the tournament scene from about mid 2010 - relatively recent I guess.
Also, I don't see comp as "changing the rules of the game".

So your issue is more that the fluff doesn't support the rules in Warmachine, not nessecarily that the rules don't support writing a story.

knas ser wrote:
Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. .

Reported.
Baseless name calling and attempts to instigate arguments as well as generally being impolite break several of the site rules.

The O, asked what we thought of as a "competitive" game. I posted mine. If your idea of a competitive game differs from my own, by all means post your idea of a competitive game. making personal attacks towards others because they see a competitive game as being different from your own is not permitted according to the site rules.
So yes, I WILL re-iterate my view of a "competitive" game...
To me, it consists of several part...
1. The number one reason is to win or come out on top. See a definition of competition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition
2. To wan to enjoy the game and enjoy the company of other players as they enjoy themselves. Keeping in mind #1 as being the primary reason you are playing that particular game. A tournament for example. on rare occasions, a player may actually want somone else to win (that person is ultra poor and just cant afford models while the player wanting them to win has all they need or just to boost the ego of someone who is discouraged) but more often hopes someone else places directly behind them so that they still "get stuff".
3. Where the list is designed to win. and you dont usually take "just for giggles) units (although i often do this when going to tourneys. I'm just not as competitive a player as others) and you usually stick to lists and units that have proved themselves or are optimized.

As i have said before, others may have different ideas or concepts and those ideas and concepts are just asvalid as this is an "opinion" question. If we ALL had the same opinion, or view of every issue, not only would the world be a boring place but the OP would not have had to ask the question as he would 'already know" how we all felt towards competitive games as they would have mirrored his own.

rigeld2 wrote:
So your issue is more that the fluff doesn't support the rules in Warmachine, not nessecarily that the rules don't support writing a story.

Well, both. I believe that there are certain things (tactics, units, whathaveyou) available to generals fighting in the Iron Kingdoms that are inexplicably unavailable on the tabletop, hindering the ability of a battle narrative to reflect the 'reality' of the fight.

Right - so your gripes entirely revolve around fluff (essentially - depending on the issue either fluff doesn't support rules or. Ice versa).

My point is that fluffy lists should have a chance of winning against non-fluffy lists, and that it's absolutely possible to get there.

In addition, since many "narrative" games (note - not "normal" games you use to write a story) change or make up significant rules, they would not be harmed by making the rules "more competitive".

 EVIL INC wrote:

knas ser wrote:
Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. .

Reported.
Baseless name calling and attempts to instigate arguments as well as generally being impolite break several of the site rules.

You're being repeatedly offensive by belittling anyone who describes themselves as a competitive player and stating that we are liars. And you repeatedly disregard statements from actual competitive players saying how we view things and tell us we're lying and then proceeding to say what we actually think on our behalf. A thread asking what "competitive game" means is not a licence to repeatedly bad mouth competitive players.

if you have a personal issue with me, take it to PM rather than clutter the thread. The OP asked a question who answer will be different from person to person based on their own opinions, views and experiences. Having a different answer than yourself for an opinion question is not being offensive. it is simply having a different view of what a competitive game is than yourself. I notice that you are not breaking the rules by personally attacking anyone other than myself for merely have a different answer to an opinion based question and I am not going to break the rules by returning the favor.

To once more re-iterate my answer to the OPINION based question...
To me, it consists of several part...
1. The number one reason is to win or come out on top. See a definition of competition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition
2. To wan to enjoy the game and enjoy the company of other players as they enjoy themselves. Keeping in mind #1 as being the primary reason you are playing that particular game. A tournament for example. on rare occasions, a player may actually want somone else to win (that person is ultra poor and just cant afford models while the player wanting them to win has all they need or just to boost the ego of someone who is discouraged) but more often hopes someone else places directly behind them so that they still "get stuff".
3. Where the list is designed to win. and you dont usually take "just for giggles) units (although i often do this when going to tourneys. I'm just not as competitive a player as others) and you usually stick to lists and units that have proved themselves or are optimized.

As i have said before, others may have different ideas or concepts and those ideas and concepts are just asvalid as this is an "opinion" question. If we ALL had the same opinion, or view of every issue, not only would the world be a boring place but the OP would not have had to ask the question as he would 'already know" how we all felt towards competitive games as they would have mirrored his own.

EDIT:By the way, i ama competative player myself so why would I insult myself?. i prefer "for fun' games but it is a RARE time when I get to have those games due to living in BFE and my old friendly players just no longer have armies. So I am forced to play competatively only against other competative players. Even within the small sub-group of competative players i usually play, we all have different views of what a "competative" game is and we respect each other's opinions and views. None are "wrong" as they are purely opinion based.

Fluffy lists totally have a chance to win against non-fluffy. Biker army is a fluffy build. So is a Necron Flyer army. So is. Beaststar. Good narrative fun behind all of them. One if the guys at my local club has made an Adeptus Mechanicus army using all unique models and taking using the rules to play them as Tau/Space-Marines. He has found a way to use the framework of the game to put together a giant robot/mechanical battlesuit list. It's a great looking army. It's super fluffy. It's also super hard to beat.

There is a clear difference between saying that an army with a good narrative foundation - fluff (Tau and Eldar forces uniting in an understanding of the Greater Good) should be able to win and saying that all 1850/1750/1500 point armies should have an exactly equal chance of winning.

Use your imagination. Make the fluff and the build work together. Surely this can be very rewarding. Yes, some of the 5th edition armies haven't been balanced in 6th yet, but allies are there to make up for anyone's shortcomings. And you can find a way to make your creative ideas competitive in the format of the game. If you want. Or not, if you

Just a point of view. I do know it's hard. Like Blood Angels are not mad strong in the current meta. And if you love BA and want to play in tournaments, or be able to face opponents with optimized lists you are going to find it tricky to win games. I'd be surprised if that doesn't change when the codexes are all revisited for 6th edition.


And then they'll bring out 7th.

many competative players play 'fluffy" armies and many of us do well. my armies are always fluffy. I'll occasionally purposely use fluff units just because i want to be different or because it is fluffy and I just finished painting it ad want to show it off.
i dont always win and I usually only average 3rd(winning a small prize) or 4th but occasionally, I will do better.
Fluffy does not automatically = weak. Sometimes it = more challenging.

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING TIME

Seriously.

Please read the rules of this site - focus on Rule #1.

Also keep in mind that people should not be aiming to antagonize and or inflame others here.

The site has an excellent IGNORE feature - please use this if for some reason you are unable to interact with others in accordance with the rules of this site.

Thanx for responding Alpharious.
LOL, Your right there. I woulda missed that missing word.
This is a GAME we are talking about. As gamers we have to face a lot of flack (not as much as we did back in the 80s of course (that was a nightmare decade for us). We should be more friendly with one another and treat each other with dignity and respect and be polite and courteous to one another.
being from the generation where you were branded a "satanist" if you played D&D or listened to heavy metal, I make it a point to always be polite and courteous to other gamers.

This not only goes for here but also in competitive games. While we are all there trying to win (I have YET to se a competative gamer go to a tourney and TRY to lose (if i did, the TO woulda been informed as having players in a tourney throw games alters the end outcome of the tourney), we are also there to enjoy ourselves and have fun. of course, in real life compeative games, this is much easier to do where you are literally face to face with one another instead of just looking at a name on a screen as we are her but the principle remains the same.This is something that some, but not all by any means, competative gamers forget.e

 EVIL INC wrote:
many competative players play 'fluffy" armies and many of us do well. my armies are always fluffy. I'll occasionally purposely use fluff units just because i want to be different or because it is fluffy and I just finished painting it ad want to show it off.
i dont always win and I usually only average 3rd(winning a small prize) or 4th but occasionally, I will do better.
Fluffy does not automatically = weak. Sometimes it = more challenging.

No idea about what all else went down earlier in the thread, but this I agree with. IMO, it is most fun when you try your hardest with a fluffier list, and try to win without spoiling the sportsmanship. The IG sentinels look damn cool but really aren't great at all in game-- I field mine occasionally anyways, and make the best use of it when I do.

In the interest of having happy holidays (and just a better time online), let's not try to gak on each other's opinions. If you're not force feeding me your thoughts, I'll likely give them merit without any "assistance".

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
many competative players play 'fluffy" armies and many of us do well. my armies are always fluffy. I'll occasionally purposely use fluff units just because i want to be different or because it is fluffy and I just finished painting it ad want to show it off.
i dont always win and I usually only average 3rd(winning a small prize) or 4th but occasionally, I will do better.
Fluffy does not automatically = weak. Sometimes it = more challenging.

No idea about what all else went down earlier in the thread, but this I agree with. IMO, it is most fun when you try your hardest with a fluffier list, and try to win without spoiling the sportsmanship. The IG sentinels look damn cool but really aren't great at all in game-- I field mine occasionally anyways, and make the best use of it when I do.

In the interest of having happy holidays (and just a better time online), let's not try to gak on each other's opinions. If you're not force feeding me your thoughts, I'll likely give them merit without any "assistance".

Both of these sound perfectly reasonable to me. No need to bash someone just because they put up a different answer.
Before reading this thread, I would have just said, it's a game where you play to win but this other guy expanded that in a way to explain it much better.

Competitive/WAAC players not caring about fluff is a fallacy.

The only reason they/we sacrifice fluff is because it's not feasible for tournament play when there will inevitably be someone with a min/max WAAC list.

The goal should be to make fluffiness and competitiveness both equally viable, AT ALL TIMES. Unfortunately, many systems that achieve this goal are called boring or lack variety, such as Warmahordes. That is the price you pay if every unit is equally viable. They are bound to be similar.

It seems like it's either a choice of fluff or competitiveness. After all, if GW merely said Riptides weren't super rare but were a very common new tech, then all of a sudden Riptide spam becomes fluffy. The "fluffy" units like Rough Riders just need massive buffs. You shouldn't have to handicap yourself just so you can enjoy certain models in GW's range.

I would say that competative and WAAC are not the same thing. I would say that they WAAC players are at the FAR extreme end of the spectrum and are not really representative of the average competative player at all.
an "average' competative player like myself is willing to take fluffy units. i dont usually go for rough riders as thier nerfing was just too much, but i will sometimes use penal legion.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Competitive/WAAC players not caring about fluff is a fallacy.

The only reason they/we sacrifice fluff is because it's not feasible for tournament play when there will inevitably be someone with a min/max WAAC list.

The goal should be to make fluffiness and competitiveness both equally viable, AT ALL TIMES. Unfortunately, many systems that achieve this goal are called boring or lack variety, such as Warmahordes. That is the price you pay if every unit is equally viable. They are bound to be similar.

It seems like it's either a choice of fluff or competitiveness. After all, if GW merely said Riptides weren't super rare but were a very common new tech, then all of a sudden Riptide spam becomes fluffy. The "fluffy" units like Rough Riders just need massive buffs. You shouldn't have to handicap yourself just so you can enjoy certain models in GW's range.

I would agree with this. I think that, where possible, it should always be possible to be both fluffy and competitive with every list out there.

I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I think the real problem is the 'having to be told to do everything by GW attitude.'

Most other games companies, simply focus on writing the instructions to play the game , that results in a well defined , intuitive game that is fun to play.
This usually involves a reasonable level of game balance for pick up and play games.

So for these type of pick up and play games some level of restriction on options is required.As this IS THE HARDEST THING TO DO , to arrive at a game balanced for competitive play.

Most people buy the rules and army lists to KNOW what is balanced , to give them a base line to develop their own narrative senario /campain driven game if they want to.

Any gaming group can knock up narrative senarios and cool lists .(it just needs some imagination.)

So buying a bunch of cool ideas and fun things INSTEAD of a rule set that is a clearly defined instruction to play a game , seems pointless to me.

IT IS YOUR HOBBY, NOT GW s.

So having a well defined , intuitive rule set that defines a level of balance suitable for competitive play.IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE.
As then ANYONE can house rule narrative cool stuff with the other players agreement, IF they want to.

Having a solid foundation to build on , is much better than a sand pit filled with quick sand to drown in.(Rules arguments, play style confrontation etc.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

But those options never should have been included in the first place. What you're proposing is a completely broken system where every random idea GW publishes has to be included in the game forever, regardless of whether it is good for the game.