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.

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?

This is how I see it.

For me (I run Dark Eldar), the game is about the use and fluff of EVERY model. I mean, don't get me wrong, I obviously try to win when I play, its the nature of the game. However, I want my army to be fluffy, unique, unbroken, and expansive.
I do not want to run 10 vemons, 3 ravagers, beastpack +farseer/fortune on jet bike with allies every game.

Hell, if it wasnt for the store that I play, I would run a Tantalus, Scourges, hell, even Mandrakes! (which look sick). I can play tourneys and win, just refuse too... For me, its about a story, fluff, and if I DO win with a mandrake army, well, its that much more satisfying!

I mean, thats why myself am torn to start 30k Death Guard or Eldar Corsairs. If more people play the FULL game, not just tourney play, then I would have no problem starting both. However, God forbid someone plays forge world or a noncompetetive list. I would get stomped.

Theres a backround and story Ladies and Gentlemen, let us use it.

The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Let me ask a question here, to understand the OP's original point.

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?

It's not a beer and pretzels game. That would be something like poker, where you have some basic rules, a bit of a grasp of probabilities, and you sit down and play with your mates.

Warhammer 40,000 requires a significant investment of time and money and an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of a large and rather incomprehensible rulebook plus additional codexes.

It's not a good beer and pretzels game, it's also not a good tournament game. Any game you play where there is a winner and loser is competitive by definition.

At the moment WH40k is running on the inertia that comes from being the dominant game system for a long time. If people can find a game that offers a similar army style tabletop wargame experience with more intuitive rules then we may see a reduction in the customer base.

In regards to the original post, I suppose people could come in and talk about the narrative experience they had with their army being shot to death by their friend's allied Tau and Eldar army.

There is plenty to talk about, just not in the list building section.

The real advantage of 40k is its relative ubiquity. You can find a 40k game at any time in most cities; other wargame systems are far more difficult to find opponents to play with.

Seeing people's armies is also a real draw.

"There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?"

Well put it this way. I consider myself a competent but not competitive painter. I do not frequent the painting sub forum very much because there is nothing there that really interests me. If we get rid of competitive 40k then the tactics and list building sections become grave yards...

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

You got it the wrong way around.

If Warhammer 40.000 would have ever been a competitive game, you would have no lists to discuss, because all lists would have been equally viable.

As long as you can discuss the merits and drawbacks of lists, you know that there are "better lists" and "worse lists".

As long as there are "better lists" and "worse list", the possibility remains that the "more skilled player" with the "worse list" will be beaten by a "worse skilled player" and a "better lists", and since you can never know how "much" / how "many %" of a given win is due to "skill" or due to the "list" the idea of using Warhammer 40K to "compete" is meaningless.

Only when all list-building would stop, and all lists and unit selections are balanced, would such a thing as "competitive 40K" start making sense in the first place.

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

you're right. there isn't much point in discussing it.

and ill raise you there isnt much point in playing the game at all. with the direction theyre headed you may as well just push your models around a table making pew pew noises.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Let me ask a question here, to understand the OP's original point.

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?

It's not a beer and pretzels game. That would be something like poker, where you have some basic rules, a bit of a grasp of probabilities, and you sit down and play with your mates.

Warhammer 40,000 requires a significant investment of time and money and an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of a large and rather incomprehensible rulebook plus additional codexes.

It's not a good beer and pretzels game, it's also not a good tournament game. Any game you play where there is a winner and loser is competitive by definition.

At the moment WH40k is running on the inertia that comes from being the dominant game system for a long time. If people can find a game that offers a similar army style tabletop wargame experience with more intuitive rules then we may see a reduction in the customer base.

In regards to the original post, I suppose people could come in and talk about the narrative experience they had with their army being shot to death by their friend's allied Tau and Eldar army.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

In my definition a 'Beer and Pretzels' game is quick to learn and fun to play.

40k rules are far to over complicated, compared to the game play complexity, to be considered quick to learn.
And the lack of proof reading editing and play testing make fun games of 40k a very rare thing indeed.Unless a lot of effort is put in before hand.
(Competitive players limit their options to the most cost effective options ,narrative players develop their own senario/campians.)

The fact that GW plc fails to write clearly defined rules due to lack of professional proof reading and editing.
Does NOT make them 'Beer And Pretzels' games.

The fact GW plc fail to play test the rules enough to provide better game balance for pick up and play games, does not make them more 'Cinematic'.

The rules for 40k are a poor concept poorly produced , but hyped to sell by making the customers argue over what they are supposed to be .And while the customers are arguing about who is playing the game the right way.GW plc laugh all the way to the bank....

 greyknight12 wrote:
Nerds will always compete, even if it's just an argument of the hulk vs superman.

People will always want to win, no matter what state the game ends up in.

I'm with superman here, sorry hulk

I mean that's a no-brainier.

I always saw "Beer and Pretzels" games as ones that don't require a near-Law Degree to be able to keep a mental index of all the rules, rules changes and corrections, Codex minutia, and extra supplements just to play a game correctly.

B&P games are fast and fun, with the minimum possible of the usual mental exercises required to perform all the tasks during the game. That is not 40K, and never has been.

The fact that GW plc fails to write clearly defined rules due to lack of professional proof reading and editing.
Does NOT make them 'Beer And Pretzels' games.

The fact GW plc fail to play test the rules enough to provide better game balance for pick up and play games, does not make them more 'Cinematic'.

The rules for 40k are a poor concept poorly produced , but hyped to sell by making the customers argue over what they are supposed to be .And while the customers are arguing about who is playing the game the right way.GW plc laugh all the way to the bank....

Exactly. Have an Exalt.

I play Epic:Armageddon. The online community, under their own volition and with absolutely no pay, has taken the rules written by GW and produced a better quality game than the "professionals" of "The Hobby", with a rulebook that actually has the errata changed in the rules (rather than many-page long reference document from GW), FAQ's added at the bottom of each page they are important to (with references linked to the above rules they affect) and more than quadruple the army lists as the GW production (17 as of now), all which have all been playtested and voted on by the community. And this is a document that supposedly gets updated yearly.

These are all something that a company that wants to make money should be doing in the first place, before the rules ever go to the printer. Professionals who are supposed to be the leading edge of the field should not have to rely on errata within 24 hours of the 1st printing release. That means that the errata has already been formatted and ready for online release before the first customer even bought their copy. Which is disgusting.


Beer and pretzels games do not need all this work.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If Warhammer 40.000 would have ever been a competitive game, you would have no lists to discuss, because all lists would have been equally viable.

Wow. Every time I think you can't possibly display any more ignorance of how competitive games work you come back and prove me wrong. Having a competitive game does NOT mean that all choices are equal. Even if there is perfect balance between, say, shooting and assault units that doesn't mean that a list with an even mix of both types will be ideal. You can still discuss the optimal mix of the two approaches, how to have a coherent strategy in your list, etc. And guess what: this is what happens in real competitive games.

As long as there are "better lists" and "worse list", the possibility remains that the "more skilled player" with the "worse list" will be beaten by a "worse skilled player" and a "better lists", and since you can never know how "much" / how "many %" of a given win is due to "skill" or due to the "list" the idea of using Warhammer 40K to "compete" is meaningless.

Seriously? Are you really saying that a game is not competitive unless the outcome is determined purely by player skill with absolutely no chance for a less-skilled player to win? So I guess that means that MTG/poker/etc are "not competitive" despite huge competitive communities playing in tournaments with tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in cash prizes?

Only when all list-building would stop, and all lists and unit selections are balanced, would such a thing as "competitive 40K" start making sense in the first place.

So I guess the intent of this is to set an impossible standard for a "competitive game" so that people will give up on 40k ever being one and start playing it the way you want them to play it?

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

So, in other words, you'd rather spend more.time tweaking and talking about 40k then just.playing? Competitive play is not the only way to play 40k. There is such a thing as playing for fun. Try it sometime.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
There is such a thing as playing for fun. Try it sometime.

Why are you assuming that they aren't having fun already?

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
There is such a thing as playing for fun. Try it sometime.

Why are you assuming that they aren't having fun already?

the OP approached the subject as if GW created 40k with the intent of it being a tournament system. it wasn't. it was made for two people to have fun.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
the OP approached the subject as if GW created 40k with the intent of it being a tournament system. it wasn't. it was made for two people to have fun.

Why do you keep assuming that they aren't having fun?

For a lot of things, competitive play is often a preferred way for a lot of players to have fun.

 Peregrine wrote:


Seriously? Are you really saying that a game is not competitive unless the outcome is determined purely by player skill with absolutely no chance for a less-skilled player to win? So I guess that means that MTG/poker/etc are "not competitive" despite huge competitive communities playing in tournaments with tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in cash prizes?

No.

I mean that as long as you cannot pinpoint whether the outcome was determined by skill or some pre-game bias towards one player or the other, the idea of competing is meaningless.

It might be "skill" in some cases. It might be skill as often as 90% of the time (though I doubt that in 40K). But as long as reasonable doubt can be raised that it might not have been, and one player had an "in-build" advantage pre-game due to the list, you can never be sure. As long as you cannot be sure, the idea of competing is meaningless.

This doesn't apply to Poker, as no one player holds a structural pre-game advantage (though you might be dealt a better hand for any given play). In the long term, it equals out. It doesn't for 40K, unless you play with "1500 pts. worth of randomly attributed models". Poker wouldn't be "competitive", if some player would enter with a "spades-deck" and some people with a "diamonds-deck", because those with the spades-deck would have a structural advantage.

MTG might have thousands of cash-prizes, but yeah, it suffers the same problem. MTG tournaments are great fun, great sales events, great promotional events, a great way to spend a weekend (as are 40K tournaments, if done right), but they are not "competitive", no.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I mean that as long as you cannot pinpoint whether the outcome was determined by skill or some pre-game bias towards one player or the other, the idea of competing is meaningless.

Which is nonsense, because there are plenty of competitive games that suffer from that problem. And you can say how there's "no point" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the competition exists and people enjoy it.

Plus, you're also arbitrarily assuming that the game begins when models are placed on the table and dismissing the importance of list construction as part of the gameplay choices that you make.

This doesn't apply to Poker, as no one player holds a structural pre-game advantage (though you might be dealt a better hand for any given play). In the long term, it equals out. It doesn't for 40K, unless you play with "1500 pts. worth of randomly attributed models". Poker wouldn't be "competitive", if some player would enter with a "spades-deck" and some people with a "diamonds-deck", because those with the spades-deck would have a structural advantage.

Except having a "spades deck" is exactly what you get. Shuffling a pile of cards is a deterministic process with no random element (if you make the necessary effort to analyze the complex physics of the situation). The players might not know what order the cards are in, but which cards each player gets is determined before the game even begins and the only question is how they will react to the unequal distribution of cards they receive. Some players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to win as long as they make the correct decision, while other players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose unless their opponent makes a stupid mistake.

Now, you could easily resolve this problem by stating that a competitive game is one that minimizes the structural advantages, and then poker would certainly qualify. But that would then force you to back off from your "no game is competitive STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" absolutes.

MTG might have thousands of cash-prizes, but yeah, it suffers the same problem. MTG tournaments are great fun, great sales events, great promotional events, a great way to spend a weekend (as are 40K tournaments, if done right), but they are not "competitive", no.

Then your definition of "competitive" is so narrow that it's a useless definition. If no game ever played qualifies as a "competitive game" then you need to change your definition until it draws a meaningful line between competitive games and non-competitive games.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then your definition of "competitive" is so narrow that it's a useless definition. If no game ever played qualifies as a "competitive game" then you need to change your definition until it draws a meaningful line between competitive games and non-competitive games.

So what is your definition of a non-competitive game then?

Where do you draw the line in a "useful" and "meaningful" way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Plus, you're also arbitrarily assuming that the game begins when models are placed on the table and dismissing the importance of list construction as part of the gameplay choices that you make.

I "dismiss" the list-building element for games like these (40K, MTG, League of Legends, etc..) because the "top" lists are an ever-changing factor that is influenced by the companies with the intention of keepting things in "flux" and to allow "new players" an easy entry into the game.

The list building part is obviously and purposefully "rigged" to monetize the game, so there is (slightly simplified) no "skill" in the list-building aspect other than being "up-to-date".

That is precisely the part where these companies (not just GW) don't want things to be balanced (or static) in ways that would support "competitive" play, because it would be directly at odds with their bottom line and the ability to easily "recruit" new player into the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:
So what is your definition of a non-competitive game then?

Where do you draw the line in a "useful" and "meaningful" way?

It's more of a spectrum from "bad competitive game" to "good competitive game", but here's a good start:

Competitive play is making gameplay decisions (NOT including cheating/rules lawyering/etc, which are not actions within the rules) primarily based on maximizing your chances of winning the game, and enjoying the satisfaction of out-playing your opponent.

A good competitive game is one that works well when played competitively. Important attributes include good balance, clear rules, and a lot of room for the players to make meaningful strategic and tactical choices to win the game.

So:

Poker is a good competitive game. The game is symmetrical (no "sides" to pick) so balance is good, the rules are perfectly clear with no potential for disputes, and the winner is usually the player who makes the best betting decisions over the length of the game but the luck and hidden information (the other player's cards) factors of individual hands means that there are plenty of interesting decisions to make.

MTG is a good competitive game. Balance at high levels is pretty good, the rules are perfectly clear with no potential for disputes that can't be solved by consulting the appropriate part of the rulebook, and the winner is usually the player who makes the best metagame/deck-building decisions along with the best in-game decisions.

40k is a bad competitive game. Balance is virtually nonexistent, the rules are hopelessly unclear and provoke constant disputes which can't be resolved without resorting to flipping a coin to see who is right, random factors often replace player decisions (for example, random warlord traits), and many of the decisions that do exist often involve very obvious answers, both in list-building and on the table.

I "dismiss" the list-building element for games like these (40K, MTG, League of Legends, etc..) because the "top" lists are an ever-changing factor that is influenced by the companies with the intention of keepting things in "flux" and to allow "new players" an easy entry into the game.

Err, what? If anything this would make list-building more important, because you constantly have to adapt your list to a changing metagame instead of just figuring out the perfect strategy once and playing it every time.

The list building part is obviously and purposefully "rigged" to monetize the game, so there is (slightly simplified) no "skill" in the list-building aspect other than being "up-to-date".

Well yes, this is one of the reasons why 40k is a bad game. Interesting list-building decisions are replaced with a combination of "buy the latest $100 kit" and laughably bad design and playtesting. Wouldn't it be so much better if the game was balanced and you had to make interesting decisions about what to take when building your list instead of just identifying the current overpowered options and taking them?

That is precisely the part where these companies (not just GW) don't want things to be balanced (or static) in ways that would support "competitive" play, because it would be directly at odds with their bottom line and the ability to easily "recruit" new player into the game.

I don't think anyone is disputing that GW is more concerned with short-term sales to newbies than making a high-quality product. But that doesn't mean that the game wouldn't be greatly improved for all players, casual and competitive, if GW decided to instead focus on making a good long-term product.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
So what is your definition of a non-competitive game then?

Where do you draw the line in a "useful" and "meaningful" way?

It's more of a spectrum from "bad competitive game" to "good competitive game", but here's a good start:

I think that is your problem. You don't acknowledge the existence of a "non-competitive" game, so, games that are just that, are "bad competitive games" in your eyes.

But a definition of "competitive" that includes (almost) all games (though some bad and some good at it), is pretty useless.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I think that is your problem. You don't acknowledge the existence of a "non-competitive" game, so, games that are just that, are "bad competitive games" in your eyes.

I fail to see any relevant difference between a non-competitive game and a game that is so bad as a competitive game that its competitive value is effectively zero. You're just nitpicking the exact wording of the labels for the same concept.

But, if you really insist on having absolute definitions, you can just divide the spectrum at some arbitrary point and break it into competitive games, non-competitive games, and semi-competitive games.

But a definition of "competitive" that includes (almost) all games (though some bad and some good at it), is pretty useless.

But that's not true at all. Ranking games on a scale from 0.000001% competitive to 99.9999% competitive tells us a lot about how competitive a game is. The only "problem" with it is that it doesn't give you the absolutes that you want to use. Contrast this with your definition of competitive games, where you learn nothing from hearing "it's a non-competitive game" because virtually all games get the same label.

Games by definition are either Co-operative.
Where the players work towards a common goal, to beat the objective set by the game.(Last Night On Earth,Star Ship Command,type board games, and RPGS like AD&D where the games master defines what the adventuring group has to achieve.)

OR the games are Competitive, where the objective of the players oppose each other in some way.So that one player reaching his objective first prevents the other player reaching theirs.(Monopoly,Cludo, snakes and ladders,most war games.)

So by the basic definition of the word the 40k game play requirements make it a competitive game.

The fact the rules are so poorly written , and the game play so random/unbalanced , players have to co-operate to AGREE HOW TO FIX the rules to let them enjoy the game before hand. DOES NOT make the game 'co-operative'

It just lets GW use BS excuses NOT to bother with actual game development, or well defined rules writing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except having a "spades deck" is exactly what you get. Shuffling a pile of cards is a deterministic process with no random element (if you make the necessary effort to analyze the complex physics of the situation). The players might not know what order the cards are in, but which cards each player gets is determined before the game even begins and the only question is how they will react to the unequal distribution of cards they receive. Some players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to win as long as they make the correct decision, while other players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose unless their opponent makes a stupid mistake.

Now, you could easily resolve this problem by stating that a competitive game is one that minimizes the structural advantages, and then poker would certainly qualify. But that would then force you to back off from your "no game is competitive STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" absolutes.

It also helps that most competitive games are played in a series of multiple rounds of some form or another in order to minimize the effect of luck.

A skilled player can slip up at a crucial moment and lose to a less skilled player every once in a while, but that will rarely happen several times in a row.

Lanrak wrote:

So by the basic definition of the word the 40k game play requirements make it a competitive game.

No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

 Zweischneid wrote:
No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

Clearly you didn't read the definition they offered. 40k, by that definition, is indisputably a competitive game because one player wins by making the other player lose (usually by killing their units and taking their objectives). There is no option for the two players to cooperate and work together to complete the game objectives and win the game. All the quote in the book says is that games are about having fun, which is about as meaningful a statement as starting your book by reminding everyone that the sky is blue.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

So by the basic definition of the word the 40k game play requirements make it a competitive game.

No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

When I go to a Smash tournament and play a set against an opponent, it's a shared experience between myself and said opponent, and we certainly try to make it as enjoyable and fulfilling an experience for each other as possible by playing at our best, but it is certainly a competitive affair.

 Fafnir wrote:


When I go to a Smash tournament and play a set against an opponent, it's a shared experience between myself and said opponent, and we certainly try to make it as enjoyable and fulfilling an experience for each other as possible by playing at our best, but it is certainly a competitive affair.

Yes. Since you are both attending a tournament, your expectations clearly align.

That might not always be the case outside a tournament, so it makes sense to take a minute (or less) before the game to make sure you have a similar "alignment of expectations" outside the tournament framework in order to re-create the same kind of mutual enjoyment.

It's not rocket-science, no?

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

That being said, not all fluffy lists are bad. Not all fluffy lists are good. But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game. The game isn't about just winning. I have an army, with a back story(sometimes), and every battle they fight goes into that back story. The lists change, and the story changes with them. If I add a Leman Russ Demolisher to the Guard list I'm building, why am I adding it? Is it part of my regiment, or an attachment? What mission are they undertaking that sees them working with a tank squadron, when they are largely footslogging and mechanized infantry? I like to think about why my soldiers are fighting. I don't like fighting opponents that are unfluffy for them to fight. I'll admit that there could be reasons for an utterly loyal regiment of the Imperial Guard to fight Space Marines or other Guard regiments, but it's not going to be very often. It makes no sense, and I want my battles to fit into my story. So I mostly fight xenos and Chaos. I'll fight Imperium armies from time to time, but I try not to make it a regular thing.

Long story short, I can play a list that does what I want it to do, in the way I want it to do it, and still play to win. Sometimes, they lose. Those battles go into the story too, because nobody wins every fight.