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.

I haven't played what this community defines as a "serious" (as opposed to "casual") list in the nearly 20 years that I have played the game. I own absolutely nothing that would be in the current meta for any of my armies, save for the two falcons in my Eldar army that can have turrets swapped into be Wave Serpents. But mine have been around since 3rd edition, when Forgeworld first produced them.

My game group is a small group of people who know each other, which especially nowadays works to our benefit in 40K. The stuff that hits my gaming table would be absolutely scorn-worthy here on Dakka, it is so casual. Half the time 4th edition rules are used to old armies like Kroot Mercenaries, Legion or the Damned (as an army) and Space Wolves 13th Company can be fielded. Or Blood Angels terminators using the Deathwing codex, but without any of the extra-fancy stuff.

Knights are absolutely laughed at because you can buy a small starter army for the same price instead.

 Psienesis wrote:

No other game has to worry about "casual" play outside of "what's your point value" and go.

Haven't kept up with the many iterations of MTG, have you?

If by "casual" you mean "build a deck out of whatever cards you have laying around" rather than "gotta play using the current restricted tournament lists because otherwise forty-seven Black Lotuses show up and the world divides by Zero", then MTG falls apart into some horribly broken deck combos. Players actually have to agree on a "rule set" to follow to play MTG if they hope to maintain some kind of balance, which limits the age, era and type of decks they can use.

Hey, but at least there's an official list of various formats so everyone sings off the same hymn sheet.

40K has the same thing going on, just in reverse. 40K in its current iteration allows for pretty much everything short of the "everything and anything goes Apoc". It's only until you get into the "Escalation is fine, but no FW, yes to one LoW but no SHA" type rulesets that people run into problems.

GW has provided us with a single hymnal to sing from, but people keep wanting to change the words of the song.

 Psienesis wrote:

No other game has to worry about "casual" play outside of "what's your point value" and go.

Haven't kept up with the many iterations of MTG, have you?

If by "casual" you mean "build a deck out of whatever cards you have laying around" rather than "gotta play using the current restricted tournament lists because otherwise forty-seven Black Lotuses show up and the world divides by Zero", then MTG falls apart into some horribly broken deck combos. Players actually have to agree on a "rule set" to follow to play MTG if they hope to maintain some kind of balance, which limits the age, era and type of decks they can use.

Correction, Miniatures Games, as you cannot compare a CCG to Warhammer 40k.

Wizards actively manages the Magic community with multiple formats that either play on luck of the draw, building decks from current print series, or "anything goes". Heroclix falls into this category, too. The relative low cost of barrier to entry into MTG also makes this a moot point.

But one concept still applies: If you have better cards from your "random pile laying around" than your opponent, you're more likely to win. If you mash random 40k armies together, some books will still be more powerful and some units will be more potent.

A balanced and actively mantained game is better for "casual" play than one that is not. It means that there is no difference between casual or competitive lists, no one feels outclassed on the table top prior to fight beginning. There's no issue about you can't bring this or that. There less subjectivity, such as "what is spam?" Some people might think 4 serpents is spam, or maybe 2 or maybe having one at all.

I hate the term and the fact that in a well balanced game it does not matter. It comes down to player skill and ability to operate one's force within the confines of the game.

I disagree.

You've already specified several items in your post, then we can throw all sorts of other things in that pile (data slates? Non print codexes?)

But then, within that already shaky structure, you have the fact that WAAC and Casual are actual play styles, whereas in Magic, they are largely restricted to being an attitude.

War hound + knights would be completely unable to touch a stormraven.

Ask to see rule books. Not just at the game.

I mean next time you go to your 40k hangout, don't play,just ask if you can sit there with the knights codex, or escalation, or an army codex you don't know, and READ.

Sun Tzu wasn't kidding when he said knowing your enemy helps. We have a guy who loses 80% of the time, and at least half of his losses I could have easily made wins, just because he sets his army on the table like throwing darts at a board and attacks everything with no plan. Doesn't have any clue what he's actually playing against.

On the other hand, people who play against me constantly find themselves 1" outside melta or rapid fire range of my vehicles, are always held up in throwaway challenges or completely outmatched in a challenge, and have to constantly contend with cover saves with their good AP weapons.

Even with Blood Angels, I win way more than I lose. Like in the 90-10 split zone.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you have TFG / WAAC friends who always buy the latest, OP stuff and play complete cheese lists to crush their enemies, it's not the game you gotta blame, but the people you play with.

You have that backwards. If the game were designed competently you could take whatever you wanted and not have to worry about "cheese lists".

If the game weren't hilariously broken then I could play my Tau without a thousand people immediately labeling me "WAAC" or "TFG" (or implying I can "faceroll" every game of 40k now) regardless of what my list actually looks like or my attitude.

 azreal13 wrote:
I disagree.

You've already specified several items in your post, then we can throw all sorts of other things in that pile (data slates? Non print codexes?)

But then, within that already shaky structure, you have the fact that WAAC and Casual are actual play styles, whereas in Magic, they are largely restricted to being an attitude.

No, the point is that you do not have to make the distinction in any other wargame. If I want to play Warmachine, I say 50 pts? and we go. Infinity... 150 or 300? And so, so on. I don't need to specifiy "hard list, soft lift, no I won't play Eldar with 4 wave serpents, yea 3 is okay, no lords of war, no formations, just one ally... etc. etc.".

That's the point. I don't care how people play, I just wish folks would realize that by the community needing to make such a distinction that it intrisicly points to how bad the rules are. And better rules would mean who cares if you play competitive (WAAC is another dumb term, smart people should stop using it) or "casual". It flat would not matter. You both say 1500 and you play the game.

To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

When two people play a casual game of 40K, they are both agreeing that some units are just not any fun to play against, so they either don;t bother using them, or use them very sparingly. For example, a single Riptide because you love the model, but you aren't spamming three of them.

It's just that 6th edition is increasingly hard to play "casual" because everything GW wants to sell well is being completely juiced up. The codex balance is so all over the board it's crazy.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is actively maintained for balance.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

Have my exalt, almost looks like a textbook definition

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning.

So jetbike/skimmer-heavy Saim Hann lists for Eldar. Or battlesuit-heavy Tau with Farsight.

So in reality it's actually not okay to build "themed" lists or otherwise stay true to your army's background, or it's only okay if your chosen army isn't currently "overpowered" and then you have to either buy a new one or play them in a way that doesn't make sense.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

Both Eldar lists are actually every bit as overpowered as "triptide" is, so yes they are the same.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
To me "casual" means that you are making cool army builds that are loyal to the feel of each armies fiction and the setting, without making any thought towards being cut-throat at it merely for the wsake of winning. You are not spamming units just of their mathematical effectiveness, you are not mindlessly using other people's internet "deathstar" lists, etc.

When two people play a casual game of 40K, they are both agreeing that some units are just not any fun to play against, so they either don;t bother using them, or use them very sparingly. For example, a single Riptide because you love the model, but you aren't spamming three of them.

It's just that 6th edition is increasingly hard to play "casual" because everything GW wants to sell well is being completely juiced up. The codex balance is so all over the board it's crazy.

Or bull sh*t allies that have no business teaming up with each other; and no the "but the rule book says I can" is not an excuse its cheese.

My Eldar army is themed as jetbike/skimmer heavy Saim-Hann, since 2nd edition. That's not the same as crazy Heldrake lists, of the like. Or playing Tau-Dar just because it's so powerful. Allying in the smallest possible amount from another army just to get the stuff that covers your army's weaknesses, etc.

There's a fine distinction, but it's there.

The bad thing is when an old army list you have been playing for years suddenly becomes the new cheese build because of horrible game balancing by GW. Used to be my one or two Wave Serpents were just because I wanted some good foot troops who could keep up with my jetbikes, and Falcons just plain don't carry enough. Now they have crazy overpowered broken "shield guns" and everyone builds around that being a strength.

 TheKbob wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I disagree.

You've already specified several items in your post, then we can throw all sorts of other things in that pile (data slates? Non print codexes?)

But then, within that already shaky structure, you have the fact that WAAC and Casual are actual play styles, whereas in Magic, they are largely restricted to being an attitude.

No, the point is that you do not have to make the distinction in any other wargame. If I want to play Warmachine, I say 50 pts? and we go. Infinity... 150 or 300? And so, so on. I don't need to specifiy "hard list, soft lift, no I won't play Eldar with 4 wave serpents, yea 3 is okay, no lords of war, no formations, just one ally... etc. etc.".

That's the point. I don't care how people play, I just wish folks would realize that by the community needing to make such a distinction that it intrisicly points to how bad the rules are. And better rules would mean who cares if you play competitive (WAAC is another dumb term, smart people should stop using it) or "casual". It flat would not matter. You both say 1500 and you play the game.

Wasn't actually disagreeing with you dude, you just managed to jump in as I was replying to Psiensis' post above yours (that'll teach me not to quote because I'm only writing a short reply immediately after a post.)

You're quite right with no other wargame needs the same level of specification, but Magic is an example of a game where potential massive imbalance exists, but there are structures in place to allow players to know roughly what play space they're occupying with a minimum of to-ing and for-ing.

There's no substitute for overhauling 40K and trying hard to bring everything up to as level a playing field as is possible, but some sort of official "format" list might just be a potential short term measure, or even something that is simple enough that the community could implement and broadly agree on.

Its not just about what you take, its also about how you use it.

For example id see a saim hann force as fluffy if it used falcons (eldar main battle tank), vypers (their source of support) and jet bikes (they shouldn't be using ground troops to get wave serpents really).

Or the jetseer, why cant the psykers spread out to lead the guardians etc (thats more fluffy to me than having all of them ride around being the killing power).

Tau with farsight? Or just farsight? Because just farsight well of course there is nothing wrong with that.

In short its not the units you bring as much as how you use them. The fact that your lists have names such as jetseer for example, already shows its a commonly used tournament list. Most casual lists have names such as the Praetorian 8th or the munkee sept (e.g a fluffy name). Its easy to make a fluffy list, and play a fluffy list.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

So you've never played against any of those 4 I take it? Triptide is nothing compared to a White Scars or Jetseeer list, unless you're talking specifically about O'vesa Star.

Technically FMC "spam" daemons is fluffy as daemons do not have a set structure. A tournament Nids list with 9 MCs, 5 of them flying (without formations), is "fluffy" as the Nids are about adapt and overcome.

The hand wave of "flufy" doesn't work. What most people mean is that they have an unwritten mindset baked into their local community/group of friends in which they normally play with. And from my experience of traveling for work, everyone has a different idea what casual is. And this is entirely different from any other wargame.


Legal Samm Hain force:

Farseer (Jetbike)
-Warlock (Jetbike)

Farseer (Jetbike)
-Warlock (Jetbike)

5x Fire Dragaons
- Wave Serpent

5x Fire Dragaons
- Wave Serpent

10x Guardians
- Wave Serpent

10x Guardians
- Wave Serpent

5x Jetbikes

5x Jetbikes

Fire Prism

Fire Prism

It meets the criteria of all fast "nobody walks" platforms. I don't see any rules saying, per the Samm Hain fluff, I must run Vypers or Falcons. What's more, is GW made the Falcon, the main "heavy support tank" for Eldar worse than the Wave Serpent.

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I bring one of the following fluffy armies:

Draigowing
Jetseer Council (minus Baron)
Samm Hain Eldar (Wave Serpents, Bikes, Fire Prisms)
White Scars Bike Army

Am I a jerk person because I thought these armies were cool? But we all know these armies are super powerful, however they also fit well into the fluff.

Meaning the argument of "fluffy" army doesn't even work. Warmachine does this far better; themed based lists get additional rules to fill gaps to make them equal to the non-themed lists. Because the game is

Those are not the same as Triptide lists or the crazy Daemon "Deathstar" lists, etc.

So you've never played against any of those 4 I take it? Triptide is nothing compared to a White Scars or Jetseeer list, unless you're talking specifically about O'vesa Star.

Technically FMC "spam" daemons is fluffy as daemons do not have a set structure. A tournament Nids list with 9 MCs, 5 of them flying (without formations), is "fluffy" as the Nids are about adapt and overcome.

The hand wave of "flufy" doesn't work. What most people mean is that they have an unwritten mindset baked into their local community/group of friends in which they normally play with. And from my experience of traveling for work, everyone has a different idea what casual is. And this is entirely different from any other wargame.

I have fielded a heavily "Saim Hann eldar"-themed army since 4th edition. It just probably doesn't have nearly what current competitive players consider to be must haves. I guarantee what I think is fun to use would be "quaint" in it's mediocrity to most of Dakka.

Well saim hann are made up of clans of jet bike riders... all their art depicts them as making use of vypers and jet bikes along with falcon tanks. It states the falcon tank is the main battkle tank of the eldar. They can use fire prisms too. But your list isnt fluffy, its fluffy until you crammed wave serpents in a jet bike troops list for the gun.

Jet tanks, jetbikes, jet bike heroes and jet bike support are a saim hann list, not ground troops sitting in transports. Im not looking to start an argument. I just thought id say how unfluffy some of those lists are. (in my opinion of course).

The list should be swimming with teams of skimmers and support skimmers doing hit and run tactics. But no, you just wanted wave serpents and hid it under a less "than half fluffy" attempt of a themed list. Well thats what id think if you made a point of saying I have a fluffy list and brought that to a game.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

I have fielded a heavily "Saim Hann eldar"-themed army since 4th edition. It just probably doesn't have nearly what current competitive players consider to be must haves. I guarantee what I think is fun to use would be "quaint" in it's mediocrity to most of Dakka.

I have zero problem with what you want to bring in a game, be it smash face or you threw darts at your codex summary. I just want a ruleset that doesn't penalize players for list building.

List building should actively be about play style. Army selection for the general theme and unit selection/composition for tools within the theme selected. I actively dislike the fact that certain units or models are virtually unplayable in their form for either needing a heavy amount of support or being so worthless that it's an active detriment to your army composition to try and use them.

As a SoB player, I'm looking right at my elite slots...

Edit: And So Samm Hainn would never use any foot infantry to hold a position? So fluff must mean complete incompetance, right? And again, it doesn't address that the Falcon is actually worse than the Wave Serpent as a gun platform. The rules within the codex are not supporting the fluff. Plus, I could then just stuff fire dragons in falcons, if I so chose, double down on bikes, and make a jetseer council to lead it. Nothing says that a farseer doesn't want to be surrounded by his closest council to ride into battle for one last valiant effort. No matter what, though, an all Eldar grav tank army would still be miles better than many other fluffy armies.

 TheKbob wrote:

Edit: And So Samm Hainn would never use any foot infantry to hold a position? So fluff must mean complete incompetance, right? And again, it doesn't address that the Falcon is actually worse than the Wave Serpent as a gun platform. The rules within the codex are not supporting the fluff. Plus, I could then just stuff fire dragons in falcons, if I so chose, double down on bikes, and make a jetseer council to lead it. Nothing says that a farseer doesn't want to be surrounded by his closest council to ride into battle for one last valiant effort. No matter what, though, an all Eldar grav tank army would still be miles better than many other fluffy armies.

No they dont, hit and run means they they are mobile and use guerrilla warfare. Remember the eldar are all about tradition, why would a bunch of traditional bike riders who view combat on their family bikes as a great honour, be running on the ground? Also why would the leaders all be grouped together killing? They are (in all the fluff i have read) spread out amongst the troops to offer support. Jetseer councils are not fluffy. They would if anything, be leading all the bikes in a large valiant effort, the seers are not a hammer, they are a support and leader group.

Fire dragons are fine though, aspects dont change because of home world. Wave serpent or falcon thats fluffy for me. But the civilians (everything not aspecty or seery or wraithy) would all be on jet bike and manning the support vehicles.



I know that yes there are some fluffy but too strong armies, but for the most part these lists are far from fluffy.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The bad thing is when an old army list you have been playing for years suddenly becomes the new cheese build because of horrible game balancing by GW. Used to be my one or two Wave Serpents were just because I wanted some good foot troops who could keep up with my jetbikes, and Falcons just plain don't carry enough. Now they have crazy overpowered broken "shield guns" and everyone builds around that being a strength.

Which is kinda like me trying to play Tau at all now. Even if I try to intentionally weaken my list by avoiding the obvious builds (riptide spam, Eldar allies), I still get gak for spamming crisis suits, or because my hammerheads and devilfish get Jink saves for moving an inch, etc. I could run my 5th edition list exactly as I did back then and people would still call my army "overpowered".

As for the wave serpent argument, I only have one thing to say: look at the fething box art. Go look at the product page on GW's website. Saim Hann colors. Pretty sure you can also find guardians painted in Saim Hann colors, too...the ground troops that Saim Hann supposedly never, ever use. You can even find wraith units painted in Saim Hann colors. God damn, GW clearly doesn't understand anything about their own fluff!

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If anything, Casual 40K is stronger then ever. The broken, idiotic and poorly written dataslates and expansions benefit casual players, who don't care about silly things like balance and consistency, and just want to have a good time forging narratives and snacking on beer and pretzels with their bros. "Can you use your knights in our game tonight? Sure brah, so long as you bring the beer!!111!11"

It's the people that care about balance and would like to play the game in a competitive manner who are getting screwed.

Well this was blown way out of proportion...

By that logic casual players should not have a problem with Jetseer councils or Screamer Star because it about the "FTN"

Fact: Not all casual players are like what you have described, I for one am a casual gamer who cares about balance because once half my army starts getting one-shotted due to some triple-tide with a Farseer is when I (and probably other casuals) would have problems with, just like how (surprise, surprise) most competitive gamers would have problems with stuff like this and the current death star problem

In other words, don't stereotype a bunch of gamers in one pen, not all of us casual gamers stereotype competitive gamers as WAAC/TFG's like the internet likes to hear.


Back to OP I don't think casual 40k is dead, just depends on your local games stores attitude to the game, for me at my FLGS I feel as if 40k has become this "arms race" you speak of so I have now backed out until it calms down in my area so I don't put up with people exploiting rules/codex's, but that is how my FLGS is going in direction so that is my FLGS, not the game.

At the end of the day its not the game we play but the players who shape what type of game the game becomes in my opinion.

This issue at its core is really quite simple. Here is what I do...

I treat all of my games like a mid-evil battler or an old-school gang fight. The terms of the battle are discussed before we even start pulling models out of our cases and in most instances, before we even make our army lists.

You know the scene in Gangs of New York after Amsterdam challenges Vallon to a gang fight; where they meet to discuss what weapons can be used? Same idea here...

I do not believe that GW is intentionally trying to create an environment where 'anything goes' with Escalation, Dataslates, etc.. I think they're trying to push us to communicate with one another.

 happygolucky wrote:


By that logic casual players should not have a problem with Jetseer councils or Screamer Star because it about the "FTN"

If you're using jetseer councils and screamerstar, you're not a casual player.

if you are a casual player, and you're playing against someone who is throwing a jetseer council or screamerstar at you, your opponent is not a casual player.

So my logic is fine. Two casual players playing a casual match aren't going to give a gak about rules imbalance, because for them it doesn't matter. They aren't trying to take optimal lists, and winning isn't the priority for them.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:


By that logic casual players should not have a problem with Jetseer councils or Screamer Star because it about the "FTN"

If you're using jetseer councils and screamerstar, you're not a casual player.

if you are a casual player, and you're playing against someone who is throwing a jetseer council or screamerstar at you, your opponent is not a casual player.

So my logic is fine. Two casual players playing a casual match aren't going to give a gak about rules imbalance, because for them it doesn't matter. They aren't trying to take optimal lists, and winning isn't the priority for them.

Incorrect. Anyone can throw around a Jetseer council and call themselves a "casual" player and this is can create imbalance, which upsets people. This is when people start having problems. As I have said I am a casual player but I also care about balance (contradictory to your labelling of "casual") as I don't really want to play against these sorts of things just like how competitive players don't really want to be playing against these sorts of things.

In other words all you're doing is labelling a bunch of people as people who don't care about the games balance and live in a world where everything is fine, yet the fact is "casual" players do care about balance and also do not like having their army's screwed over by a couple of rules, I want to be outplayed and know I can improve my skills (and this is the same with other casuals) rather than out ruled and my only answer is to just to simply C+P the list or shove a D weapon in my own list, in order to win games.

I think its only as dead as you let it become yourself. Find like minded people and play with them, and you will more than likely always have fun.

 happygolucky wrote:
Incorrect. Anyone can throw around a Jetseer council and call themselves a "casual" player

They can call themselves that, but that doesn't mean that they are.

"No true casual" fallacy much?

GW has constructed a game where people can BUMBLE into builds that dominate their local group. This domination has led to this game dying at some stores. No "WAAC" players necessary.