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.

Part of the "agree" problem is that I would only play at a FLGS and it's random who shows up on miniatures night. There are some people who only turn up for tournaments, some who are there every other week, etc. so it makes it hard to discern the local meta as well as have an agreement beyond points value.

I'm not sure that will be too much of an issue, to be honest. At the start, when you don't know who's who and how they play, it'll be worth pointing out before a game something like 'I'm playing casually, not competitively' or whatever. This will have one of two results. Either they are playing that way too, and you both have a good game, or they are a competitive player who probably won't gain much from playing you and so will go and find another opponent more in line with his expectations.

After a few weeks of doing this, you'll get to know who plays how, and can play those who share your view. The chances are there will be quite a few (probably a majority) who will play in the same way as you, so it shouldn't be hard to find a regular group of opponents.

I think I don't understand something here . Playing non competitive is playing outside of a tournament , what influence does it have on how an army is played . a 1500pts army for a tournament will be the same as a non tournament one , with only difference that the first one will have the obligatory 5 colors and the other one probably won't.

Some people feel obligated, if going to a tournament, to use triptide level cheese (or as close as they can get to it), while when playing non-competitively they can take units they actually want to use... which is what is meant by those comments.

Not everyone can be sensible and take their normal army to tournaments.

What is a tripide cheese ? I will assume it is something that works well. Why would anyone not want to play with something that is good, unless of course the replacement is good too. Someone would have to want to buy bad units and outside of someone playing for a long time and his army being nerfed and him not wanting to switch or upgrade his old army , I can't think of a reason why someone may want to do that.

Personally I think it's fun. But I also think checkers is fun... and ball in a cup... and hoop n' stick. ALL THINGS ARE FUN!!!!! (like working on spreadsheets to forecast finances and activities for the whole next year of your life)

#crazynotcrazy

Makumba wrote:
What is a tripide cheese ? I will assume it is something that works well. Why would anyone not want to play with something that is good, unless of course the replacement is good too. Someone would have to want to buy bad units and outside of someone playing for a long time and his army being nerfed and him not wanting to switch or upgrade his old army , I can't think of a reason why someone may want to do that.

Triptide = 3x Riptides in a Tau army, possibly with Eldar allies for a Farseer for re-rolls

The issue, and part of why it doesn't seem fun to me, is because there's this whole metagame of list building where some units are useless and you never want them, some units are so good that you always want them, so you get into situations where you are punished for playing to the fluff of an army or playing to a specific theme because it doesn't include the OP units and might include the UP (underpowered) units. For example, let's say that I wanted to do a "realistic" Tau army, that means battlesuits in support of lots of Fire Warriors, Kroot/Vespid, etc. I'd likely get the stuffing kicked out of me for choosing the wrong type of army, instead of going with tiny FW squads hiding somewhere, lots of Battlesuits (or playing Farsight) and stuffing as many Riptides/Skyrays into the army as possible. Or if I liked visually the idea of a huge army of Orks cutting their way through everything - I would be punished for playing the wrong army (last I checked Orks were not very competitive, likely due to not having a codex update in 2 editions) and the wrong type of that army (Footslogging instead of doing whatever net-list for Orks is floating around). Or Chaos with lots of Chaos Marines instead of barely any and taking Heldrakes, or doing Typhus+Zombie spam or something unfluffy like that, just so you don't lose all the time.

The reason is wanting to play an actually realistic, fluffy army and NOT lose every battle because the army isn't balanced worth a damn, and you're at a huge disadvantage for actually wanting to field troops or playing to your theme instead of just taking the most powerful units. That's what sours me the most on the game: The idea that I can't actually play what *I* think is cool, because while I'm not a WAAC type I don't want to always lose either, or only win against other new players who make the same bad choices that I do. I remember when I used to play Fantasy years ago in 5th edition we had a very friendly guy that was always at the store with an Empire army, and he would like always lose unless you subtly threw the game (which some of us would do every so often because we felt bad for him), not because he was a bad player but because he would field what he thought was cool and not care how well they actually played, so his army ended up having a lot of bad units because he liked them. I don't want to be that guy, as after a while he just stopped showing up because I guess losing all the time made the game unfun for him, and I can't say I blamed him.

Triptide = 3x Riptides in a Tau army, possibly with Eldar allies for a Farseer for re-rolls

Ok , I have never met people playing tau that did not have riptides in their army . I have seen people that don't use eldar , mostly because their either use marines or farsight as ally .

I don't see how riptides are unfluffy in a tau suit army . Riptides are suits , so unless your planing to play a kroot only army , which isn't even possible with the new tau codex, then I don't see how riptides wouldn't be one of the models a tau suit player may want to run .

Same with orks , they are ok . Necron ally give them good troops and support their melee units with destroyers lords and wrights . They can also take 3 units of lootaz which are very shoty , even normal ork boyz are very shoty considering it is cheap to get 30 of them with some support weapons.

I hate chaos helldrakes , but I don't see what is unfluffy about using mass cultists or zombis&tyfus . Tyfus fluff is that he brings zombis with him and all the books I read tell about milions of cultists supported by a few csm , so runing a csm light army would be perfectly fluffy . Sorc and lords are good and their are csm , oblits were csm and bikers are ok units and csm too. Sure one could build an army with just demons and cultists ,but am sure all people who wanted to play dark mechanicus armies are happy about that option.

So I don't see how good armies are suddenly less fluffy then bad ones . Good armies are good , and bad armies are just bad. If someone has enough money to burn on a weak or bad army it is his choice .

WayneTheGame wrote:
For example, let's say that I wanted to do a "realistic" Tau army, that means battlesuits in support of lots of Fire Warriors, Kroot/Vespid, etc. I'd likely get the stuffing kicked out of me for choosing the wrong type of army, instead of going with tiny FW squads hiding somewhere, lots of Battlesuits (or playing Farsight) and stuffing as many Riptides/Skyrays into the army as possible.

Man, you won't believe this but a fluffy Tau army (lots of suits and FWs) is just a few shades weaker than the triptide setup. Hell, you can even include Vespids and you won't experience a big power drop because the rest of your army can carry some deadweight without problem. Fire Warrior Castles are awesome, Crisis suits are cool and Broadsides are one of the bestest units of the codex. it is just one thing that Riptides are even better. The only setup that is kinda' bad is mechTau but some FW goodness (Tetras) can solve your problems easily.

WayneTheGame wrote:

The reason is wanting to play an actually realistic, fluffy army and NOT lose every battle because the army isn't balanced worth a damn, and you're at a huge disadvantage for actually wanting to field troops or playing to your theme instead of just taking the most powerful units. That's what sours me the most on the game: The idea that I can't actually play what *I* think is cool, because while I'm not a WAAC type I don't want to always lose either, or only win against other new players who make the same bad choices that I do. I remember when I used to play Fantasy years ago in 5th edition we had a very friendly guy that was always at the store with an Empire army, and he would like always lose unless you subtly threw the game (which some of us would do every so often because we felt bad for him), not because he was a bad player but because he would field what he thought was cool and not care how well they actually played, so his army ended up having a lot of bad units because he liked them. I don't want to be that guy, as after a while he just stopped showing up because I guess losing all the time made the game unfun for him, and I can't say I blamed him.

Here is your problem. This is, in fact, not true. I have a good win/loss ratio with Adepta Sororitas. I have a good win/loss ratio with my Thousand Sons chaos, which has no helldrakes. My Tau army is pretty much all fire warriors, pathfinders and Piranhas, and I do okay with them. One of my friends fields almost nothing but fire warriors and sniper drones and he kicks arse.

One of my other friends plays Tri-drake and has never won a game. Mostly because he's absolutely terrible at the game.

Makumba wrote:

Triptide = 3x Riptides in a Tau army, possibly with Eldar allies for a Farseer for re-rolls

Ok , I have never met people playing tau that did not have riptides in their army . I have seen people that don't use eldar , mostly because their either use marines or farsight as ally .

I don't see how riptides are unfluffy in a tau suit army . Riptides are suits , so unless your planing to play a kroot only army , which isn't even possible with the new tau codex, then I don't see how riptides wouldn't be one of the models a tau suit player may want to run .

Same with orks , they are ok . Necron ally give them good troops and support their melee units with destroyers lords and wrights . They can also take 3 units of lootaz which are very shoty , even normal ork boyz are very shoty considering it is cheap to get 30 of them with some support weapons.

I hate chaos helldrakes , but I don't see what is unfluffy about using mass cultists or zombis&tyfus . Tyfus fluff is that he brings zombis with him and all the books I read tell about milions of cultists supported by a few csm , so runing a csm light army would be perfectly fluffy . Sorc and lords are good and their are csm , oblits were csm and bikers are ok units and csm too. Sure one could build an army with just demons and cultists ,but am sure all people who wanted to play dark mechanicus armies are happy about that option.

So I don't see how good armies are suddenly less fluffy then bad ones . Good armies are good , and bad armies are just bad. If someone has enough money to burn on a weak or bad army it is his choice .

I think you've slightly missed the point. A competitive army doesn't necessarily mean an unfluffy army, neither is the reverse necessarily untrue. The difference between what most people think of as a 'casual' list and 'competitive' list is a casual list will generally feature models and units that are there for reasons other than efficiency (the player likes the models or fluff, it is thematically appropriate etc) whereas a competitive list is only concerned with taking the most efficient options, and will frequently spam those options to the exclusion of all else.

This, in itself, isn't inherently a problem, the problem arises only when you factor in that the game balance between books, and in many cases the internal balance as well is way off. In theory 'casual' or 'competitive' should only describe your attitude to the game, how seriously you take it, how focused you are while playing etc, and should make no functional difference to how potentially effective your chosen army is. The reality is we live in an era where rerollable 2++, multiple T8 MC even at relatively low points, basic troops all armed with AP2 weapons, twin linked everything, highly mobile T6 MC gun platforms and hugely more effective overwatch are all present, but limited to only a handful of factions, whereas others have received decidedly mediocre updates that simply don't have the tools to deal with it all. (Without even addressing those books who've yet to update.)

Like I said before, none of this is inherently a problem if you play the same opposition frequently and can find some middle ground so every player approaches list building from a similar mindset, but while the majority of players continue to play pickup games, or in a club where you have too large a group to really reach an agreement, very powerful lists which are legal, while arguably not sporting, will remain a problem unless GW one day finally realises that tightening up the rules and improving inter and intra faction balance is of benefit to everyone.

Makumba wrote:

Ok , I have never met people playing tau that did not have riptides in their army . I have seen people that don't use eldar , mostly because their either use marines or farsight as ally .

I don't see how riptides are unfluffy in a tau suit army . Riptides are suits , so unless your planing to play a kroot only army , which isn't even possible with the new tau codex, then I don't see how riptides wouldn't be one of the models a tau suit player may want to run .

Same with orks , they are ok . Necron ally give them good troops and support their melee units with destroyers lords and wrights . They can also take 3 units of lootaz which are very shoty , even normal ork boyz are very shoty considering it is cheap to get 30 of them with some support weapons.

I hate chaos helldrakes , but I don't see what is unfluffy about using mass cultists or zombis&tyfus . Tyfus fluff is that he brings zombis with him and all the books I read tell about milions of cultists supported by a few csm , so runing a csm light army would be perfectly fluffy . Sorc and lords are good and their are csm , oblits were csm and bikers are ok units and csm too. Sure one could build an army with just demons and cultists ,but am sure all people who wanted to play dark mechanicus armies are happy about that option.

So I don't see how good armies are suddenly less fluffy then bad ones . Good armies are good , and bad armies are just bad. If someone has enough money to burn on a weak or bad army it is his choice .

That's just the point, every army is a good army. Or at least it should be viewed upon as so. Tau and Eldar are considerably powerful because they have the most things to be exploited along with being tagged together for broken compos and the like. Much like a good portion of armies if played a certain way.

But that's the problem and the point he was trying to make: Unless you play as army A in X way then you will be crushed. Also actually reading the codex, The Riptide is suppose to be a very new, experimental product that was few in number and even more so exclusive to one caste iirc. So shoving 3 of them or even more(Farsight Enclave) is a bit wrong because by rights of fluff, there shouldn't be that many Riptides upon the field. While yes battlesuits and Firewarriors can be in abundance. People aren't playing them because this is how the fluff is written, they are playing them because they are auto uses and what the internet and everyone deems to be so powerful that it would all but aid them to win every time. Granted they can lose if the enemy is smart and the dice roll more in their favor, but math hammer and the like see Triptides, Taudar and etc to be more likely of winning. Not because of fluff, but because they are abusing units and attempting to use the logic you used as reasoning for why it's alright and fluffy when in reality it's not.


Now what it means to be a fluffy, casual player usually amounts to what has been said already. Those who not only play what they feel is cool, but play to a theme that, in turn, allows them to use the things they deem are cool.

For Instance: One of the Great Companies of Space Wolves centers a great deal upon Fenrisian Wolves and Thunderwolves. So a fluffy way to play this company would be to have as many of all as you can while having a wolf lord with the saga that goes hand in hand with the main composition of the company. This company would also include Canis for further fluff.

While a none fluff way to do this would be to have a standard 2 Rune Priest or even just one with a few Grey Hunters and Wolf Guard with as many Long Fangs firing missiles while having Cyclon Wolf Guard termis as possible while trying to avoid using the TW and Fenrisian Wolves. Or keeping them being one or two and leaving it at that. Foregoing a sage that would be more fitting with avoiding it as a whole or just going with a big bulky thunderwolf lord who will use his wolves as shields instead of caring for them which will be just the one unit of them.


White Scars are being cared for especially right now because of how effective they can use Grav weapons. Where before it was all about the Ultra Smurfs, it's now all about White Scars with Grav Weapons and bikes. Sure they were know for bikes yes, but now most likely you're going to see White Scars with Grav weapons


As for Chaos they are different in many ways that should give way to their own respected fluff and means of what each Warband has/is know for. So while yes it'd probably be okay to have one or so Helldrake. Unless the Warband isn't know for it or is actually not in approval of it. Granted I only really know about the RC so I can't really say much about the other Warbands.


Point of all this is that people play this game using units, combos and the like that will help them win more then just coming in to simply expand upon fluff and their own unique list play out. Usually lists are picked off the internet because of how powerful it is/ "You can only play them like this. Everything else sucks and you should avoid and burn them with fire because you will never ever ever win". I wish I was exaggerating that last part but it is how some people look at it...

It's also not like this is limited to 6th, I played in 3rd and I remember the same things. "Rhino Rush" springs to mind as well as the "Mauleed Marines" from this very site (albeit a previous incarnation), with tons of 6-man Las/Plas Tactical squads. The meta has always been here, just with 6th it feels more prolific without any semblance of balance, while I recall in 3rd things were at least slightly closer balanced.

I've played since 2nd edition, and I find the core rules to be balanced as well as they've ever been.

I think it's a fun game. You don't have to bother with every single detail of the rules. I forget to roll the "Mysterious Objective" and "Mysterious Terrain" roll almost every game... but I have fun because my opponent forgets too.

If you're playing outside of a tournament setting, you can still play competitively. The idea that only spam units are competitive is false. There are many non-spam combos that unlock TACTICS outside of completely annihilate your opponent. The last game I played, I lost most of my army [10/14 units], while my opponent lost less than half of his [6 / 13 units], but I won the game, because I made intelligent sacrifices to achieve the objectives.

I honestly feel that 6th edition rewards play outside of kill'em'all more-so than any previous edition. The randomness, while initially irritating, requires constant reassessment of TACTICS throughout the game. Strategy is pretty much confined to List Building and Setup. After that, you're going to need to adapt to the changing game, without being able to be certain of any outcome. I enjoy that, and other people don't. If you enjoy a TACTICAL game, 6th edition is a fun and rewarding experience. If you prefer a strategic game, where you can accurately predict the outcome of given actions, then you might find 40k less enjoyable.

Something is tactical when you can adapt to it . When your opponent objective becomes skyfire and your blows up , specialy if you don't have a+3 sv , then there is nothing you can do to adapt .

But that's the problem and the point he was trying to make: Unless you play as army A in X way then you will be crushed. Also actually reading the codex, The Riptide is suppose to be a very new, experimental product that was few in number and even more so exclusive to one caste iirc. So shoving 3 of them or even more(Farsight Enclave) is a bit wrong because by rights of fluff, there shouldn't be that many Riptides upon the field. While yes battlesuits and Firewarriors can be in abundance. People aren't playing them because this is how the fluff is written, they are playing them because they are auto uses and what the internet and everyone deems to be so powerful that it would all but aid them to win every time. Granted they can lose if the enemy is smart and the dice roll more in their favor, but math hammer and the like see Triptides, Taudar and etc to be more likely of winning. Not because of fluff, but because they are abusing units and attempting to use the logic you used as reasoning for why it's alright and fluffy when in reality it's not.

So If I play IG and the fluff says that plasma is super rare , I should be arming my vets with flamers and GL ? Besides if something was realy are the list would limit it by either it being high cost or making it 0-1 like characters. Riptides are in the codex and that makes them fluffy , 1 is fluffy and so is 5 . If it was unfluffy to ally tau with farsight to get 5 , then such option would not exist.

Where before it was all about the Ultra Smurfs,

I did play in 5th and no one played Ultras then , sm were either vulkan or pedro builds .

A competitive army doesn't necessarily mean an unfluffy army, neither is the reverse necessarily untrue. The difference between what most people think of as a 'casual' list and 'competitive' list is a casual list will generally feature models and units that are there for reasons other than efficiency (the player likes the models or fluff, it is thematically appropriate etc) whereas a competitive list is only concerned with taking the most efficient options, and will frequently spam those options to the exclusion of all else.

But that is not the definition of campetitive . Competitive means something that is used in a competition like a tournament or league . Everything else is non competitive , I fail to see how what is in a list deems a list competitive or not . Otherwise everyone could call every list competitive , just because he doesn't like it or the person who has it.

Like I said before, none of this is inherently a problem if you play the same opposition frequently and can find some middle ground so every player approaches list building from a similar mindset, but while the majority of players continue to play pickup games, or in a club where you have too large a group to really reach an agreement, very powerful lists which are legal, while arguably not sporting, will remain a problem unless GW one day finally realises that tightening up the rules and improving inter and intra faction balance is of benefit to everyone.

I am confused . The only moment what this could be true . if people would , out of their own will pick , pick bad armies and expect to get the same gaming expiriance as people playing normal armies .

Makumba, the difference is that people who don't play 'competitive' armies think that what you consider to be 'bad' armies are normal armies, and what you consider to be normal armies are competitive armies.

Makumba wrote:

So If I play IG and the fluff says that plasma is super rare...

Not anymore! The wargear book explicitly says that plasma is pretty common and produced in vast quantities all over the Imperium. The technology itself is "barely understood" but ain't no guardsman cares about that.

I don't think I've ever had more fun with 40k than I have since 6th. I love this edition of the game. There are plenty of additions, yes, and some of them might not be super balanced, but for the most part these are optional. Even then, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of reason couldn't just be talked to before the game so you can discuss what's what. Unless it's a pick up game at a store and some guy brought only his Escalation force, you'll probably still have a fine game.

Everyone saying 40k is more of a social game has it right on the money. You can still make a fairly hard list, but this is a game made exponentially better by playing with friends you enjoy hanging out with. I've had great tournament games with strangers, but there's nothing more fun to me than playing with a good friend over some beers and good conversation.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Makumba, the difference is that people who don't play 'competitive' armies think that what you consider to be 'bad' armies are normal armies, and what you consider to be normal armies are competitive armies.

This is precisely my thoughts. Makumba, I totally understand where you're coming from but, with all due respect, your points are actually showing me that the game isn't fun because A) there exists "bad" armies and "good" armies, and B) The general view that if it's in the Codex, it must be fluffy. I disagree with that entirely (always have), and that's where the line is drawn as you might say "Well, there's no limit on Riptides so I'm allowed to field 3 of them" while I might say "A Riptide is rare, so I'm going to limit myself arbitrarily to 1", and then all of a sudden my army is that much weaker despite being closer to the fluff representation of a Tau army than the one that uses 3 Riptides, has zero Fire Warriors, and then allies with Farsight to take several more Riptides.

I haven't played since 5th. Hated 5the edition with last turn Vehicle rush spam.

Only reason I never tried 6th, was I quit because of the I move, I shoot, I assault, you move, you shoot, you assault. Too me that is so BORING. I just feel like I am standing around rolling dice and doing nothing else. A few times, I was saying to myself, where is the fun? When is the fun going to happen?

Since you liked this in 3rd edition, you still might like that format. I would really wish GW would change this format.

Personally, its not that 40k isn't fun; there's just so many options out there that produce models I enjoy in a ruleset far more balanced and intuitive with pricing in a reasonable bracket.

I'll enjoy just about any game with people I enjoy spending time with, and pushing models around a table is pretty much guaranteed to bring me some amount of enjoyment. I just get more from other games. Surprisingly, my love of board games and other pen and paper games has grown exponentially.

There have been "good" and "bad" armies for the entirety of the run of this game. Imperial Guard at the start of 5th edition were downright sad, Dark Angels were terrible until their current codex (which is merely okay) and Tau and Necrons were godawful for an edition or so until their current books. Even in 2nd edition, Chaos was an army that couldn't move fast and had to get into melee, but didn't have any way to get there. That made them fairly lousy too. These are just some pretty random examples off the top of my head, but it's nothing new. Personally, I don't mind all that much since I don't play with the types of folks who bring cutthroat competitive lists to casual games, but I can see some groups being a lot less enjoyable to hang out and play with.

Makumba wrote:
I think I don't understand something here . Playing non competitive is playing outside of a tournament , what influence does it have on how an army is played . a 1500pts army for a tournament will be the same as a non tournament one , with only difference that the first one will have the obligatory 5 colors and the other one probably won't.

Going to a tournament means "I have to win with plastic toy soldiers, and fun be damned". Well not most people but a lot of people. Funny how a lot of people Play Tau and Eldar now, where not many people played them in 5th edition, or before the 6th edition codexes.

Davor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I think I don't understand something here . Playing non competitive is playing outside of a tournament , what influence does it have on how an army is played . a 1500pts army for a tournament will be the same as a non tournament one , with only difference that the first one will have the obligatory 5 colors and the other one probably won't.

Going to a tournament means "I have to win with plastic toy soldiers, and fun be damned". Well not most people but a lot of people. Funny how a lot of people Play Tau and Eldar now, where not many people played them in 5th edition, or before the 6th edition codexes.

Every tournament is different. Those tournaments sound pretty miserable, but most of the ones I've gone to have been really fun experiences.

One thing everyone seems to forget is that both people need to have fun to make it a fun game.
Your “Job" is as a Gamer it to make sure that your opponent has a good time.
Your opponents “Job” is to make sure you have a good time.
If one of you did not have a “Good Time”, you both failed at your “Job”.

What does this mean? Both of you need to compromise things here and there.
If Billy Bob likes to take three Riptides and an Eldar Seer while Mary like to play a “Fluffy” Space Marines list on a Open Table Night at the LFGS for months now.
If both players don’t care, there is no issue, but if Billy Bob always insists take his Triple-Tide TauDar List there may be a problem.
As we all know the triple-Tide TauDar are going to Dominate the Marines most of the time. Again this in not a problem if Mary does not mind even though Billy Bob has never lost to Mary’s Marines. However if Mary ask Billy Bob to not take the Triple-Tide TauDar List every once in a while, what is wrong with that?
I say nothing, Mary has not complained about the Triple-Tide TauDar List, but request he not take it. There is a lot out there that would make Mary the Villain here because she is asking him to “NERF” his list.
However I say it is the reaction Billy Bob that is important.
Billy Bob’s choices:
1] Decline and Just keep using Triple-Tide TauDar List: This shows one of few things. Billy Bob probably is a WAAC Player and/or TFG. He know he would win unless he does something really stupid.
2] Declines Because he just does not have the models to play another List: Maybe he should pick up some more modes or play a different level points game where he looses his Eldar Allies or drops a Riptide. This show he is willing to compromise, but just does not really have the options.
3] Agree and modifies his list occasionally: This shows a good level of Sportsmanship and is willing to compromise so that Mary can have a Good time.

So Called “NERFing” a list here and there so others can have fun is not a bad thing.

Makumba wrote:
What is a tripide cheese ? I will assume it is something that works well. Why would anyone not want to play with something that is good, unless of course the replacement is good too. Someone would have to want to buy bad units and outside of someone playing for a long time and his army being nerfed and him not wanting to switch or upgrade his old army , I can't think of a reason why someone may want to do that.

Because a lot of the time (I'd actually hazard a guess at most of the time) people don't pick armies purely based on effectiveness. A 'competitive army' generally refers to a list that is built with all the optimum choices with the sole purpose of beating other armies and being as powerful as it possible can be. A 'casual' army is something where the units taken are not chosen based on effectiveness, but on the fluff, the feel, the look of the models or basically anything other than hard maths. The vast majority of players I've encountered in real life play in this way, and (i doubt coincidentally) have never had any real issues with balance. While there are discrepancies between the power of some units, it only really becomes an issue when they are taken as many times as possible (ie a 'competitive' list) as that imbalance with other units is extrapolated.

I very much doubt that there are many people who would rather play the former way, with limited choice based purely on what is 'the best', and if your local group does adopt this mindset, then I honestly feel sorry for you. As I said over the page, 40k is what you make it. Take it seriously, with the 'I must take the best' attitude, and you probably won't enjoy it as much as someone who puts together a cool and personal army and generally cares more about how the result is reached than the result of the game itself.

. A 'competitive army' generally refers to a list that is built with all the optimum choices with the sole purpose of beating other armies and being as powerful as it possible can be

What else would you buy models for . w40k is a game and games are ment to be won. Sure I can understand someone playing with fewer type of good units and replacing them with other good units , if someone doesn't have the cash or he just plain can't buy the models where he plays ,but what for would anyone else buy models for ?

One thing everyone seems to forget is that both people need to have fun to make it a fun game.

Not true I had seen and played many games , where only one side had fun.

So Called “NERFing” a list here and there so others can have fun is not a bad thing.

This is crazy talk , what if you spend cash on models that are bad to make X or Y happy and he leaves the game or better yet builds a proper WS/IH marine army , which he should be building in the first place and you end up with cash spent on models you don't want, don't like and will never again use ? Maybe if someone dad or older brother had a model casting facility it could be possible , but how many people have dads or brothers like that.

Going to a tournament means "I have to win with plastic toy soldiers, and fun be damned".

Are you claiming that wining in or out of tournaments is somehow unfun? if wining is unfun then what is the problem of people with bad lists , they aren't wining so they get what they want. Fun and not wining.

A) there exists "bad" armies and "good" armies, and B) The general view that if it's in the Codex, it must be fluffy. I disagree with that entirely (always have), and that's where the line is drawn as you might say "Well, there's no limit on Riptides so I'm allowed to field 3 of them" while I might say "A Riptide is rare, so I'm going to limit myself arbitrarily to 1", and then all of a sudden my army is that much weaker despite being closer to the fluff representation of a Tau army than the one that uses 3 Riptides, has zero Fire Warriors, and then allies with Farsight to take several more Riptides.

But as you call them bad armies don't exist . Or they exist in theory . Sure someone could make an army out of firewarriors with vespids , stealth suits and triple hammerheads . But no on in their right mind would buy such an army . Now I can imagine someone having a cheap army that is ok like 5th ed draigo wing and a good henchman razor spam list . One list is cheap , the other list is good and costs more . But it would make no sense in 5th to let say make an army around GK strikes with halabards ment for melee. The list would theoreticly be there , but no one would play it.

Makumba, the difference is that people who don't play 'competitive' armies think that what you consider to be 'bad' armies are normal armies, and what you consider to be normal armies are competitive armies.

It is not possible to call something that is so rare , that it is never done , to be called normal .

Take it seriously, with the 'I must take the best' attitude, and you probably won't enjoy it as much as someone who puts together a cool and personal army and generally cares more about how the result is reached than the result of the game itself.

I liked IG very much in 5th and it wasn't even an army I wanted to play first . Wanted to play SW , but they were already taken .

Makumba wrote:

. A 'competitive army' generally refers to a list that is built with all the optimum choices with the sole purpose of beating other armies and being as powerful as it possible can be

What else would you buy models for . w40k is a game and games are ment to be won. Sure I can understand someone playing with fewer type of good units and replacing them with other good units , if someone doesn't have the cash or he just plain can't buy the models where he plays ,but what for would anyone else buy models for ?

Like I said in the post, a lot of people play the game for other reasons than winning. Some for a cool story, some for the social aspect, some for how awesome a game between two nicely painted armies on a cool board can look. To many people, I dare say actually winning is way way down the list when it comes to playing. Of course, in a tournament where there is some kind of prize at stake, there's every reason to being the most optimised list possible, but outside of that, effectiveness is not generally the primary motivator.

As for why people would buy non-optimised models, there are many reasons. The coolness, the modelling/painting, the fluff. For example, if I were to start a CSM army, I would probably be throwing down at least 10 Warp Talons. Are they worse than the Heldrake? Yes. Are they worse than bikers? Yes. Does wanting to take them because they look absolutely awesome make me a worse player? No.

Your viewpoint has merit when there is a tangible prize at stake, but beyond that, I imagine most would not share it.

IMO the problem is that there are such things as "non-optimized models" in the first place, and that's where my issue lies. I don't want to be penalized for taking the so-called "non-optimized" models if I like them better or they fit my army fluff better or whatever other reason. At that rate, they might not even exist if they're so bad that people don't take them.

It seems like a lot of the fun depends on the local meta - if you game with a lot of WAAC, always take tournament lists people, and you don't, you're not going to have fun or vice versa.

WayneTheGame wrote:
IMO the problem is that there are such things as "non-optimized models" in the first place, and that's where my issue lies. I don't want to be penalized for taking the so-called "non-optimized" models if I like them better or they fit my army fluff better or whatever other reason. At that rate, they might not even exist if they're so bad that people don't take them.

But people do take those units. Knowing what's best and feeling compelled to take that are two entirely different things. From an objective viewpoint, I know that plasmaguns or melta are the best weapons for IG squads. That's not going to stop me running flamers and GL because it fits my fluff better.

If you are playing casually (the way it seems like you want to) then you won't be penalised. Most non-optimsed lists are roughly balanced in power, as both players will have some better and some worse units. For example, I had a 'casual' game against Tau the other week, I used Space Marines in Rhinos (often seen as bad) and an IG blob with Inquisitor (good). He took a Riptide (good) and some stealth suits (less good). It balances out and it was a close game.

Most armies of any kind can deal with one Riptide or a couple of Serpents, it's only when you get 2 tides or 3 serpents that there is enough of a difference to be an issue.

I really suggest you don't discount the game based on internet hyperbole, just try it for yourself (see if you can borrow an army) and I hope you find that in real life, not every army/unit is as amazing/useless as the internet would like you to think.