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.

Laughing people out of the store because they don't play the game exactly the way you think it should be played makes you Those Guys.

 Lucarikx wrote:
I'm not defending anyone, but if a 'dex has bad choices, and a person states the bad choices, no need to call him a 'that guy'. We should stop the name calling before a mod closes this thread.

Fair enough. But remember that it is one thing to call out bad choices and another thing to be outright demeaning about it.

 GreyHamster wrote:
Laughing people out of the store because they don't play the game exactly the way you think it should be played makes you Those Guys.

When someone provides valid and very very true advice, you shouldn't disregard it as douchebaggery either.

And one shouldn't be demeaning about it. I have no problem with someone stating something is bad. But when I make my case and he starts talking down...well it makes him no better.

As far as the laughing people out, maybe it does make us those guys. But we play for fun, and it is considered very poor form to bring those lists in unless it is agreed upon before the game. Nobody likes playing when they can't have fun. We are a friendly group and I have been told many times that people will bash my dex because it is old but to keep at it and carry the torch because we won't suck forever. If any offense was taken to my previous posts it was very unintended and I apologize I do not apologize for defending MY CHOICE to play BA.

Drop pod lists are strong and fluffy, not WAAC. It'd be WAAC if you threw in some random Tau allies or some other nonsensical gak.

If its stomping too much face, just tone it down, or make sure your opponents know your playing without the kiddy gloves so they can tone their lists up - the only bad game is a mismatched one

Top Blood Angels player at LVO ran a drop pod heavy list, and I've seen it crush a fair bit of face

Murdius Maximus wrote:
And one shouldn't be demeaning about it. I have no problem with someone stating something is bad. But when I make my case and he starts talking down...well it makes him no better.

As far as the laughing people out, maybe it does make us those guys. But we play for fun, and it is considered very poor form to bring those lists in unless it is agreed upon before the game. Nobody likes playing when they can't have fun. We are a friendly group and I have been told many times that people will bash my dex because it is old but to keep at it and carry the torch because we won't suck forever. If any offense was taken to my previous posts it was very unintended and I apologize I do not apologize for defending MY CHOICE to play BA.

I never ripped anyone's choice to play BA. I just ripped units in Codex:BA. How is stating my objective analysis of units with C:BA demeaning?

The other side of the coin is that why should players have to self-nerf because GW can't do math? You're talking about laughing people out of a play group for fielding LEGAL lists. So you would treat a Taudar player like a cheater then? Because those are the only players we "laugh out of the store".

I post under the assumption that all possible opponents are doing everything they can do to win. I can't a priori know how much people are pulling punches in any given game store or region. I see no choice but to make general statements that assume the worst case scenario, ie Taudar exist and you have to play them with a TAC list. List tailor changes some match ups for the better, as does people self-nerfing. But I can't qualify every statement that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murdius Maximus wrote:

 Lucarikx wrote:
I'm not defending anyone, but if a 'dex has bad choices, and a person states the bad choices, no need to call him a 'that guy'. We should stop the name calling before a mod closes this thread.

Fair enough. But remember that it is one thing to call out bad choices and another thing to be outright demeaning about it.

I was just trying to point out that C:BA has more limited viable threats than that particular poster alluded to. Viable threat, by definition, can not be overcosted (by much), because they won't have the durability/pt necessary to contribute to target saturation. DC, in particular, only work when assaulting, have no ranged firepower to speak of, don't score, and aren't any more durable than any other BA. That's not a good set of traits.

If you were offended in any way I am sorry. I took what you said as rude and attacking and misunderstood. No need to drive it home. I'm wrong and my opinion of my army is misguided and stupid.

I'm just trying to make myself clear. I don't think your opinion is stupid. You likely just haven't experienced a lot of top list builds. BA are a solid 5th edition codex. But it's not 5th edition anymore. The Tyranids are in a similar boat and they just got a codex, so there's that.

The BA don't seem so bad until you start taking 50+ W a turn that you have to save and you start running out of units fast, because each units costs so many points. Or you get zapped with things that ignore cover and double you out, taking away SoS AND FNP..

You have made yourself clear. Blood Angels are the worst OMG dumb army ever right now. But in my area it fields pretty well. Tau are ZERO fun to play against because of the reasons that you stated. You also missed the part where I amended my post and added that it had to be agreed upon first before fielding some crack broken list like that. I played a Tau army and was tabled in two turns. It wasn't fun. I'm sure he had a lot of fun, but I sure as hell didn't. It left me feeling dejected and upset because I spent A LOT of money to build my army and felt like I made the wrong choice to have fun because "this is what everyone is running dude." To me you echoed this mentality and it hit a sour note with me.

"That Guy" nearly ruined my want to play this game because I felt horrible about making the wrong decision. "That Guy" did the same thing you were doing and "objectively" ripped my frakking army apart every time he killed something and literally told me how foolish it was that I fielded that garbage. The only difference to me was that you weren't across from me on the table. That store had lots of "That Guy" people and I stopped going there. I found another store where instead of telling me what a crappy decision I made, they worked with me to help me maximize the tools that I do have, but warned me to be cautious right now because it is a difficult time for BA players. Again, I misunderstood you and thought that you were tearing BA apart because they suck at a competitive level, much like "That Guy" did at my first store. Not everyone who has fun playing this game does so because the army is broken. I love the fluff of BA and I really like their war strategy and characters with them. Shouldn't that be enough?

No you shouldn't have to nerf your play just for someone else, but WAAC players often forget that it has to be fun for both players and when you bring a list like that to a casual game in my current FLGS good luck finding an opponent because they want to HAVE FUN. Not watch you go shoot their army to death and have ALL the FUN.

I agree that such games are not fun. However, the best way to prevent this from happening has been stripped from us by GW not assigning appropriate points costs to units in this game. Without appropriate, objective points costs, the whole thing degenerates into a subjective opinion war of what's too OP to play with and against and what isn't.

I myself still play as BA occasionally, and I have never jumped to the latest power list, even when I had the means to do so.

I've been on the other side of this and it was very confusing as well. In 3rd edition, BA were horrifically broken. But then the question was what units to bring? And this goes back to GW once again, not pricing meqs appropriately in that edition compared to other Xeno lists, who had a relatively hard time killing them.

A game where someone has to hold back isn't a fair contest. If that makes me WAAC, so be it, but I've never felt the term was fair or appropriate for those who like to field the best lists possible for their codex.

That being said, it's not your fault that GW gutted the BA in 6th ed. I would never call someone's list "garbage" or fault THEM for what GW did. I merely call the units I think are bad bad. I just want to make sure people are aware which units are mechanically lacking and why. If you still like using them, that's great! But if say the Tau choose not to hold back, it's gonna be ugly, even if they are extremely polite.

Oddly enough, when I field my blood angels and actually try, I do fairly well. Fear of Darkness and some skillful placement of jump troops usually does me pretty well.

I will say the old razor spam days are gone, what with first blood, hull points, no assault out of transports, effects of shaken and stunned on passengers etc.

But a couple assault squads with fnp and some librarians with fear of darkness to push enemy models off the board, backed up by some predators or dreadnoughts, more assault marines, maybe some terminators? I find it works quite well. Sure, someone has 36 twin-linked strength 7 cover-ignoring shots. But they don't have 7 units with it, and they won't always pass their check for fear of darkness, and there's a lot of threats on the board that they need to use those shots to kill.

Will I win a tournament with it? No. But I stomp most locals whenever I play my BA, even against necrons and tau.