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.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
I am not trying to talk about the merits of 40k as a balanced or unbalanced game, I just want to hear suggestions on how to avoid hassle with people that I don't want to play a transcendent Ctan, or fight two riptides and have to dig out the independent character rules as to how commander batman cant join it now.

If these are people you know and are friends with, tell them you want to have a fun game with just the models you own and you'd like to have some fun too, and ask them to bring a themed army rather than a competitive army. Tell them to try out a formation they haven't used before to see how it performs. Suggest they use it as an opportunity to try new units/combinations in a less competitive environment.

Also, guys, he's been pretty clear that he doesn't want to try other games and he's not interested in hearing about how much you hate 40k. Not every thread needs to get turned into a soapbox to be stood upon while preaching the failings of GW and/or their rules. Let's try to keep it constructive and actually address the question posed rather than derailing the conversation. The suggestion to try a different game was made, it was shot down, let's move on.

 Ailaros wrote:
A balanced game, where you can do whatever you want and still win.

And a strategy game where doing certain things makes you more likely to win.


....


Right...

I can't speak for everyone, but what I and others want from 40k is the players should matters more than the toys. If my opponent and I make good lists and are of similar skill level than the outcome of the game should be in doubt. If the game is balanced it should come down to player actions and some luck, not who has the bigger wallet or got lucky in the codex lottery.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Have you tried extreme physical violence?

Always works for me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You just have to accept that they enjoy the game in a different way from you. Both sides are okay, you should try to find a like minded player.

Kiwidru wrote:
people who make armies tend to want and enjoy having a fairly balanced assortment of units, generally over invest in troops, and enjoy the narrative of their army as it would exist in the typical fluff. Their general idea of a take all comers list focuses on destroying a fairly balanced opposing list (stuff to kill troops, stuff to kill vehicles, stuff to hold ground, stuff to take ground, etc)

What does "lots of troops" or "few duplicates" have to do with fluff? My fluffy IG armored company list has very few troops and lots of duplicate tanks.

In general us older players have burned through all our WAAC fuel and seem to be much more interested in having fun while playing a game than winning said game.

1) Playing an optimized list is not WAAC.

2) The people playing those optimized lists are also having fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
people who make armies tend to want and enjoy having a fairly balanced assortment of units, generally over invest in troops, and enjoy the narrative of their army as it would exist in the typical fluff. Their general idea of a take all comers list focuses on destroying a fairly balanced opposing list (stuff to kill troops, stuff to kill vehicles, stuff to hold ground, stuff to take ground, etc)

What does "lots of troops" or "few duplicates" have to do with fluff? My fluffy IG armored company list has very few troops and lots of duplicate tanks.

In general us older players have burned through all our WAAC fuel and seem to be much more interested in having fun while playing a game than winning said game.

1) Playing an optimized list is not WAAC.

2) The people playing those optimized lists are also having fun.

I agree. Why is there the assumption that fun is impossible with optimized lists?

Eh, I'm a little torn on this subject. If they're playing within the rules then I have a hard time looking down on them for bringing the best list they can. On the other hand, I can appreciate not wanting to be roflstomped every game you play. Just choose not to play them. The consequence of this choice may be that you don't play any games, depending on if the other players choose to play with your regulations. But ultimately its up to you.

The Home Nuggeteer wrote:I am not trying to talk about the merits of 40k as a balanced or unbalanced game, I just want to hear suggestions on how to avoid hassle with people that I don't want to play a transcendent Ctan, or fight two riptides and have to dig out the independent character rules as to how commander batman cant join it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toofast wrote:
What's wrong with a riptide? I'm not even super competitive but I wouldn't play you either with a restriction like that. It's not a super heavy, LOW or FW, you just don't like that model so you expect someone else to play without it. That would be like me telling an opponent "sorry, I don't play against land raiders, take that out of your list." Maybe try getting another 1,000 point army and playing against yourself cuz nobody in my local meta would play against you either with those kind of restrictions on building a list.

I'm sorry, but if I bring a pure foot guard list not even knowing that there is a riptide present I may be hesitant to play it as I am woefully unprepared. I can not afford to change my list, I could just as easily say, "Why should I have to take a loan out of the bank to make a new list so you can use your gundam?"[/quote]

Becouse the same company made it for the same game, so anyone should be allowe to play it. If you don't like it way do you blame the player and not to guys that made the thing and it's rules and say that they can use it.

Ailaros wrote:A balanced game, where you can do whatever you want and still win.

And a strategy game where doing certain things makes you more likely to win.


....


Right...

If I could do what ever I want and win, how would the other guy win. Doesn't seem balanced if it doesn't matter what to do and I still win, while the other guy can't win by doing what ever he want. Seem kind of one sided. Maybe you can you know give some examples of how that would work would really like to know. But, please not just one line pointless examples. Doubt you will or could for that matter, but I love it could.

My suggestion against WAAC players is to proxy units that'll make it less fun for them. See this can of Pringles... it's now an Eldar Wraithknight and that bottle of coke... that's now a greater daemon of xyz.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Are you physically larger then them?

It doesn't hurt sometimes to follow them to their car or wait for a moment where the two of you are alone to intimidate them into being less of a jerkass. Remind them that in the real world, your tactical acuity with action figures doesn't count for much.

Some of the douchey responses I read in the W40K Facebook posts... I feel like those people need a smack upside the head to teach them that being a rule book know-it-all doesn't make up for a douchebag attitude. Being a new player in my LGS has been great, being a new player online has filled me with hate and discontent.

 Ailaros wrote:

60mm wrote:Ailaros, here is what your argument always boils down to.

Every car has imperfections, as no structure is entirely perfect. So, keeping that in mind, there isn't much difference between my '84 Beetle and a show room '15 Beetle.

That's not even close.

My argument is that strategy games are those where certain combinations of rules make a player more likely to win than if they made different choices. It necessitates things which are stronger and weaker, or, as some like to say, imbalanced. People who want a balanced game don't want a strategy game.

The Home Nuggeteer wrote:I'm sorry, but if I bring a pure foot guard list not even knowing that there is a riptide present I may be hesitant to play it as I am woefully unprepared. I can not afford to change my list, I could just as easily say, "Why should I have to take a loan out of the bank to make a new list so you can use your gundam?"

The problem is that you want to have it both ways. You want to be able to win without doing what it takes to win.

Either be a casual player, which includes not caring if you lose, or be a stronger player, so you can win more. There sort of isn't another solution to this.

I dont exactly want to have it both ways, i prefer close, challenging games, not 1 sided games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
people who make armies tend to want and enjoy having a fairly balanced assortment of units, generally over invest in troops, and enjoy the narrative of their army as it would exist in the typical fluff. Their general idea of a take all comers list focuses on destroying a fairly balanced opposing list (stuff to kill troops, stuff to kill vehicles, stuff to hold ground, stuff to take ground, etc)

What does "lots of troops" or "few duplicates" have to do with fluff? My fluffy IG armored company list has very few troops and lots of duplicate tanks.

In general us older players have burned through all our WAAC fuel and seem to be much more interested in having fun while playing a game than winning said game.

1) Playing an optimized list is not WAAC.

2) The people playing those optimized lists are also having fun.

I agree. Why is there the assumption that fun is impossible with optimized lists?

A guy brings what he has and likes, one guy brings his optimized list, who has fun?

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
A guy brings what he has and likes, one guy brings his optimized list, who has fun?

What you don't seem to understand is that the person with the optimized list is ALSO bringing what they have and like. You need to learn that not everyone shares your ideas about what is fun and builds their lists around what will give you an equal chance of winning.

Yeah, it is finding that common ground (if willing)

I hate taking on the "Optimized list" when it is heavily proxied and not fully assembled or even primed.

I think I could take any list I want as well if I did not care in the slightest how it looked.

To be the great list strategist without pitting a lick of effort into it is where I say no thanks to a game. Yeah, have the killer list but for goodness sake make it not look like the flavor of the day.

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
A guy brings what he has and likes, one guy brings his optimized list, who has fun?

What you don't seem to understand is that the person with the optimized list is ALSO bringing what they have and like. You need to learn that not everyone shares your ideas about what is fun and builds their lists around what will give you an equal chance of winning.

They like winning, and will pay for it, I like Cadians and Ravenwing and will get them when i can, i dont have a metric shitton of models like most people on here, my ig models barely break 1500.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
They like winning, and will pay for it, I like Cadians and Ravenwing and will get them when i can, i dont have a metric shitton of models like most people on here, my ig models barely break 1500.

Yes, and what's your point? The like winning and have built a collection based on how well it wins games. You're asking them to stop playing with the models they enjoy using and build weaker lists so that you can keep using the models you enjoy without having to make any sacrifices. Do you see how selfish this is?

I don't care how much fun "you" are having. If you bring a 2++ re-rollable list...have fun playing someone else.

So is this one of those threads where we want to tell someone what they can bring in a list so that we can bring what ever we want?

Cause I love those.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
They like winning, and will pay for it, I like Cadians and Ravenwing and will get them when i can, i dont have a metric shitton of models like most people on here, my ig models barely break 1500.

Sounds like i personal problem

Kidding aside, If there is literally no one there that would want to play a non competitive game, then its either time to leave em or join em honestly... otherwise you could try to coax them into ether a narrative campaign that might be harder to min max or play one of those random campaign missions (the new missions in like the crimson slaughter or the redwag book and mix it up)

 Peregrine wrote:
So, the new DA codex just killed Deathwing allies by changing Belial's special rule to only apply to a primary detachment. If you take DA as allies you're stuck with the usual garbage tactical squads and no terminators. Thankfully I haven't ordered those pretty FW terminators yet, because this is really annoying.

So, the problem: mech IG is great at killing stuff, but weak at holding objectives now that veterans have to get out of their Chimera bunkers to score. This means that games have to end with the opponent crippled beyond the point where they can kill a squad of T3/no-save infantry, and the veterans have limited ability to secure an objective and hold it against counter-attack. And, to make things worse, they have no ability to assault anything more threatening than a lone fire warrior and expect to win. So if plasma doesn't get the job done in the shooting phase even a single terminator/few marines/etc surviving on an objective are effectively invulnerable and not going anywhere. Deathwing were supposed to fill this role, providing a durable scoring unit with a nasty counter-assault threat and the ability to finish off anything left standing on the objective they're about to take. But, now that Deathwing is no longer an option, what do I do? I have a few things I expect from any potential unit:

1) It must be better than a tactical squad. I'm not paying the tactical tax, and any allies choice that involves tactical squads is not an option.

2) It must help with target saturation. Terminators were ideal because 2+ saves attract lascannons, just like the wall of AV 12. So no basic MEQs, they die too quickly to basic bolters/lasguns/etc without helping with target saturation against heavy weapons.

3) It must be at least decent at shooting. This is above all a shooting army, so no assault units that can't contribute anything until turn 3+.

4) It must be scoring. I have plenty of stuff to kill with, so any allies choice needs to revolve around their troops.

5) Bonus points for providing other useful units (divination psykers, Contemptor Mortis dreads, etc) in addition to the troops.


So, options I'm considering:

1) GK terminators. Kind of like Deathwing, but with psycannons instead of cyclone missiles (sigh). It's the most straightforward replacement and a psyfleman dread isn't a bad bonus, but just seems somehow disappointing.

2) SW terminators, and hope they don't ever errata it away like Deathwing. Lots of options (combi-weapons!) and the beloved cyclone missiles, but 275 points to unlock them as troops is a lot. The other option is taking a rune priest or two (divination!), elite wolf guard, and hybrid terminator/power armor grey hunter squads. That's cheaper and gives awesome psychic powers and defense, but I'm stuck with power armor on most of my models.

3) C:SM biker captain and bikes. Somewhat less durable than terminators (T5 helps a lot), excellent mobility, plasma/melta guns everywhere, and a Contemptor Mortis dread. On the other hand there's no real assault ability, and sadly no divination.

4) Give up on the whole plan and just take Tau allies. Sure they're still fragile, but they're tougher than guardsmen and can babysit a "home" objective while still contributing

Kiwidru wrote:
those that make lists tend to settle on an optimum loadout and cut/paste those options as many times as they can to get to their points limit. This genreally means bringing minimum troops and maxing out the more powerful force org areas.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) It must be better than a tactical squad. I'm not paying the tactical tax, and any allies choice that involves tactical squads is not an option.
4) It must be scoring. I have plenty of stuff to kill with, so any allies choice needs to revolve around their troops.

Kiwidru wrote:
They also tend to enjoy the narrative of their army, but primarily cornercase scenarios that justify the units they bring... tigurus and his hard-as retinue of grav centurions team up with an inquisitor and a few dozen henchmen, and happens to run into a lone chapter master on bike with the shield eternal; wild adventures follow.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, options I'm considering:

1) GK terminators. Kind of like Deathwing, but with psycannons instead of cyclone missiles (sigh). It's the most straightforward replacement and a psyfleman dread isn't a bad bonus, but just seems somehow disappointing.

2) SW terminators, and hope they don't ever errata it away like Deathwing. Lots of options (combi-weapons!) and the beloved cyclone missiles, but 275 points to unlock them as troops is a lot. The other option is taking a rune priest or two (divination!), elite wolf guard, and hybrid terminator/power armor grey hunter squads. That's cheaper and gives awesome psychic powers and defense, but I'm stuck with power armor on most of my models.

3) C:SM biker captain and bikes. Somewhat less durable than terminators (T5 helps a lot), excellent mobility, plasma/melta guns everywhere, and a Contemptor Mortis dread. On the other hand there's no real assault ability, and sadly no divination.

4) Give up on the whole plan and just take Tau allies. Sure they're still fragile, but they're tougher than guardsmen and can babysit a "home" objective while still contributing

Im sorry, ill change that to partial armored company, teams up with whatever random unit the creator thinks is 'the best'; wild adventures follow.

Kiwidru wrote:
Their general idea of a take all comers list focuses mainly on focusing on one aspect of the game, such that the average opponents list will be overwhelmed/not able to deal with the skew.

 Peregrine wrote:
2) It must help with target saturation. Terminators were ideal because 2+ saves attract lascannons, just like the wall of AV 12. So no basic MEQs, they die too quickly to basic bolters/lasguns/etc without helping with target saturation against heavy weapons.

i dont mean to pull words out of your mouth, but it sure does look like i was spot on about your list, without ever seeing it. This is exactly what this guy is talking about... you could VERY EASILY go full armored company, but you dont want the hindrances that would force upon you. this guy clearly doesnt mind, but is tired of having to argue with people that enjoy the game differently.

 Ailaros wrote:
Or, of course, you could point out how 40k is a dice game and playing it on easy mode with strong lists doesn't make their manhood any bigger, but that's probably going to lead to more hassle than it's worth.

Well, yes, you should generally try to avoid making yourself look pretentious if it can be avoided.

Different people play the game for different reasons. There's no need to get insulting just because someone likes playing with their toy soldiers differently to how you do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
Saying that playing eldar right now is a stronger way to play is like saying that opening with pawn to E5 is the strongest chess opener.

Well, no, it would be more like claiming that the game is fine despite the fact that black knights get to move 3 spaces more than white knights with no corresponding advantage for white.

Balance doesn't mean every single thing in the game is equally good... it just means that each side should have a reasonably even chance of winning.


But you know that, because you've been involved in every single previous discussion on the topic back to 1914, but you continue to misrepesent it. That gets old.

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
They like winning, and will pay for it, I like Cadians and Ravenwing and will get them when i can, i dont have a metric shitton of models like most people on here, my ig models barely break 1500.

Yes, and what's your point? The like winning and have built a collection based on how well it wins games. You're asking them to stop playing with the models they enjoy using and build weaker lists so that you can keep using the models you enjoy without having to make any sacrifices. Do you see how selfish this is?

Dude, he's a casual player trying to find a game that he can have fun with. If a new guy at the FLGS asked me to play a game with him and said he only had 1,500 points of stuff, I'd probably just bring a bunch of boyz and maybe a few kans. Not a push-over list by any means but if the new guy wants to get a game in and play with his new toys, I'm not going to stomp him into the ground just because I can. He's not being selfish trying to find a way to ask the local big dogs to take it down a notch and help him have some fun with his limited model selection.

Nuggeteer, if you put it to them like that ("I've only got a few models, just looking for a quick fun game, not a competitive list, help a brother out...") I'm sure at least some of them will oblige you (I would). I mean, a dude bringing a land raider or a riptide at 1,000 points is a bit ungentlemanly but you should be able to deal with something like that. Two riptides or land raiders or whatever at 1000 points? Maybe talk to him and say "look, I've only got a few models, my army can't handle this. Could you do me a solid and swap one of your riptides out for something else?"

Kiwidru wrote:
i dont mean to pull words out of your mouth, but it sure does look like i was spot on about your list, without ever seeing it.

Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the fact that we're talking about a hypothetical list from over a year and a half ago, one that I ended up not building because I didn't really like any of the options. And then let's conveniently ignore that a big part of my reason for wanting those DA terminators in the first place was that terminators are cool, and FW had just released some really amazing terminator models. And we certainly need to ignore the possibility for coming up with fluff around the new additions, and focus entirely on the fact that I discussed the best way to win a game with them in a thread in the tactics forum.

Plus, you're completely ignoring the actual criticism I made in favor of trying to portray me as some kind of WAAC TFG for trying to optimize a list. I pointed out that having lots of troops or few duplicate units has nothing to do with fluff (and it doesn't), and nothing you've said about my own list-building choices has anything to do with that argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

office_waaagh wrote:
I'm not going to stomp him into the ground just because I can.

Do you understand that there's a difference between "stomp him into the ground just because I can" and "the things I consider fun are more powerful than the things my opponent likes"? We're not talking about TFGs making lists designed purely for clubbing baby seals and then collecting their opponent's delicious tears, the OP is expecting people to nerf their lists and stop playing the units they enjoy using so that the OP has a better chance of winning and doesn't have to make any changes to their own list.

He's not being selfish trying to find a way to ask the local big dogs to take it down a notch and help him have some fun with his limited model selection.

No, he's doing a great job of being selfish and entitled. He's expecting other people to make sacrifices so that he doesn't have to, and taking some bizarre moral high ground where he's "just having fun" and his opponents don't understand what fun is.

When you ask "how to deal with overzealous competitive players", perhaps you should ask yourself "how should i deal with myself not being competitive?" instead. They're not in the wrong, and neither are you - but you can't change other people, you can only change yourself. Many people are amenable to lower power games in 40k if you say why though. Or if they want to run their competitive lists, you can have a points handicap that you both agree on. This lets them test their strategic mettle and you get to field a bigger army of units that you like.

office_waaagh wrote:

Nuggeteer, if you put it to them like that ("I've only got a few models, just looking for a quick fun game, not a competitive list, help a brother out...") I'm sure at least some of them will oblige you (I would). I mean, a dude bringing a land raider or a riptide at 1,000 points is a bit ungentlemanly but you should be able to deal with something like that. Two riptides or land raiders or whatever at 1000 points? Maybe talk to him and say "look, I've only got a few models, my army can't handle this. Could you do me a solid and swap one of your riptides out for something else?"

This made me laugh. I'm encouraging a friend of mine just starting out to pick up a Land Raider to add to the Chaos Battleforce box to give a 1000pt list. And I'm shifting my own lists to be able to have an answer to it, which isn't that easy. A Land Raider at 1000 seems perfectly natural. Maybe at 750 and below it's a bit much, but if you can't handle such things, that's what the lower point games are for.

So let me get this right.

The OP only has 1000pts of models. But when playing other people makes demands on what they can take so his fun level isn't effected.

Seems to me we have a case of special snowflake,

Kiwidru wrote:
In general us older players have burned through all our WAAC fuel and seem to be much more interested in having fun while playing a game than winning said game.

Too much generalisation right there. I've been gaming for almost 19 years now and I care more about tweaking lists to be optimised now than I did in the first 6 or 7 years of playing wargames.

I burned through my "a game is just an excuse to line up models and go pew pew" fuel a long time ago.

Of course, if I have an opponent who I know doesn't have the option to tweak their list, I'll try and dumb down my list appropriately so the game is actually competitive instead of boring.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

office_waaagh wrote:

Nuggeteer, if you put it to them like that ("I've only got a few models, just looking for a quick fun game, not a competitive list, help a brother out...") I'm sure at least some of them will oblige you (I would). I mean, a dude bringing a land raider or a riptide at 1,000 points is a bit ungentlemanly but you should be able to deal with something like that. Two riptides or land raiders or whatever at 1000 points? Maybe talk to him and say "look, I've only got a few models, my army can't handle this. Could you do me a solid and swap one of your riptides out for something else?"

This made me laugh. I'm encouraging a friend of mine just starting out to pick up a Land Raider to add to the Chaos Battleforce box to give a 1000pt list. And I'm shifting my own lists to be able to have an answer to it, which isn't that easy. A Land Raider at 1000 seems perfectly natural. Maybe at 750 and below it's a bit much, but if you can't handle such things, that's what the lower point games are for.

Uh...thanks?

But I agree, there's a fine line between saying "I only want to play with guardsmen armed with lasguns, so please don't play with anything I can't hurt with S3" which is probably a bit too much to ask, and saying "could you tone down the uber-units a touch for me? I don't have enough melta for this and my collection is pretty limited." which is a lot more reasonable. One powerful unit at 1k is pretty acceptable, but spamming them in a "just for fun" low-points game is a bit unsporting.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the fact that we're talking about a hypothetical list from over a year and a half ago, one that I ended up not building because I didn't really like any of the options. And then let's conveniently ignore that a big part of my reason for wanting those DA terminators in the first place was that terminators are cool, and FW had just released some really amazing terminator models. And we certainly need to ignore the possibility for coming up with fluff around the new additions, and focus entirely on the fact that I discussed the best way to win a game with them in a thread in the tactics forum.

Plus, you're completely ignoring the actual criticism I made in favor of trying to portray me as some kind of WAAC TFG for trying to optimize a list. I pointed out that having lots of troops or few duplicate units has nothing to do with fluff (and it doesn't), and nothing you've said about my own list-building choices has anything to do with that argument.

I dont mean to call you out, you jsut happened to be the black knight championing poor sportsmanship. i was originally making generalities about WAAC gamers and fluff gamers. Naturally there are varying levels, jsut like how every fluffy player doesnt plop his minis down and play to lose. Some people are further from the center of this spectrum than others (which in this case would be anyone that insists on bringing an ultracompetitive list, no matter how unfun it makes it for the OP, and especially if he specifically communicates this concern), but we are all on the same spectrum.

But to the crux of it, i most definitely DID reinforce my argument by specifically highlighting how you adhered to every word of it. If you are particularly concerned with the fact that i didnt address the 'lots of troops' or 'few duplicate units' i would be more than glad to read between the lines for you. Quite literally, your list in question (and feel free to produce one you feel better epitomizes your style, that was jsut the most recent one that the forum search turned up), was designed to

[E]nd with the opponent crippled beyond the point where they can kill a squad of T3/no-save infantry

, [Sarcasm]which sounds like a blast for someone who doesnt even have the resources to put up a fight if he wanted to.[/Sarcasm]

You also prioritized troops for scoring as a distant secondary objective... so much so that it was the last thing you included, and really tried to pidgeon-hole the most powerful unit that has a 'troops designation' at the very end of building the list... How this is unfluffy is, quite simply, because units designated as troops have been the cornerstone of every army that has ever existed, with specialists operating in distinct unique situations which support the main force, not the other way around. It might be fun to make lists about elite commando brigades every so often because war does occasionally feature those types of battles, but there is a reason that the imperial guard arnt only made out of karskin, or that when we landed on normandy it wasnt jsut a couple of hundred of commandos. It might seem redundant, but at this point i feel i shouldnt leave anything to the imagination: Those that want their force to resemble an actual army tend to want something that resembles an actual army, rather than a bunch of minis that we combined in an attempt to maximize a set of rules.

Onto the 'few duplicate units', im gonna show my age here by busting out the last GW book i bought: Spacemarine codex by Matt Ward 2008. (Yes i still play, i jsut rely on game store copys of the books because... well.. 'fudge gw, ill have my minis and my money too!') within its contents it has the ultramarines 2nd chapter in pictorial form: 6 tac squads, 2 assault, 2 devastator, 2 dreadnaughts, command squad, sicarus, and chaplain. Of all those units, the only thing duplicated were two tac squads with flamer/missile launcher. I would classify 2 as 'few'. and it doesnt get much fluffier than the fluff within the codices themselves. Not saying you cant have a squadron here and there, but when the list is something like this: (and again, jsut pulling the first list off of 40k army lists)
+ HQ +
* Hive Tyrant (240pts) Electroshock Grubs, 2x Twin-linked Devourer , Wings
* Hive Tyrant (240pts) Electroshock Grubs, 2x Twin-linked Devourer , Wings

+ Elites +
* Malanthrope (85pts)
* Malanthrope (85pts)

+ Troops +
* Ripper Swarm Brood (45pts) 3x Deep Strike
* Ripper Swarm Brood (45pts) 3x Deep Strike
* Ripper Swarm Brood (45pts) 3x Deep Strike

+ Fast Attack +
* Dimachaeron (200pts)
* Dimachaeron (200pts)

+ Lords of War +
* Barbed Hierodule (565pts)

its fairly obvious that the guy just looked at each section, found what he considered the most powerful thing, brought two, and then filled the last 8% of the list out of the troops section. The duplication units isnt an absolute branding of WAAC, but it is a fairly strong indicator. Especially at the expense of the notably weaker troops selections. Again, you might not consider yourself, or even be, that far from center mast on the spectrum... but the brief dabbling my search did sort of indicates that you adhere to a similar mantra of gaming, even expanding my general notes to include articles that ive learned from this convo, specifically 'abandons list when units he likes are found to be ineffective', and 'creates army primarily on rules interactions'.

again op, i think yonan might have said it best

 Yonan wrote:
When you ask "how to deal with overzealous competitive players", perhaps you should ask yourself "how should i deal with myself not being competitive?" instead. They're not in the wrong, and neither are you - but you can't change other people, you can only change yourself.

and if not yonan, the animal reserve guy from the stampy episode of simpsons:



(Edit: gettin Yonan's name right)

This board would really benefit from a sticky post PSA that lets people know the difference between a WAAC player and a competitive player/player who makes strong lists.

I imagine the latter don't like being lumped into the same group as people who would cheat to win.

As for you OP.

You seem to not want to negotiate and they seem to not want to negotiate. You and the rest of your club/store are incompatible. They aren't going to care that some guy on Dakka said you're right or whatever. You either find people that share your mindset and play with them or quit the game.

Yes, it does suck that you spent a bunch of money on something you may end up not being able to get any fun out of. Maybe you should let others who want to get into the game know about your experience and encourage them to investigate how their local meta plays before making any big purchases (and this something that can apply to any locally played game).

Ravenous D wrote:The OP only has 1000pts of models. But when playing other people makes demands on what they can take so his fun level isn't effected.

Seems to me we have a case of special snowflake

Sure. And I'd agree that if the OP's definition of fun is winning, it doesn't make sense to try and enforce a handicap on everyone else so he can win more. Well, I guess it makes sense if he just wants to win, but I'd personally think that would cheapen the victories somewhat.

If the OP's definition of fun isn't just about winning, though, and the person can't adjust things on their own, then there's nothing wrong with talking to people about things. If, for example, the OP didn't find games above 1000 points fun, then everyone else forcing him to play 1850 point games would be just as much of a problem as him trying to force everyone else to play 1000 point games.

I guess it just kind of depends on the specifics of the problem here. Which seem somewhat elusive.

Noir wrote: Doesn't seem balanced if it doesn't matter what to do and I still win, while the other guy can't win by doing what ever he want.

Win equally, I mean to say. Not win all the time.

If two players can make whatever decisions they want and have a roughly equal chance of winning, it's not much of a strategy game.

Crimson Devil wrote: If the game is balanced it should come down to player actions and some luck, not who has the bigger wallet or got lucky in the codex lottery.

If all you want to do is when, then do what it takes to win. If you want the easiest possible experience winning games, then yes, you should switch to a new codex if a new one comes out, just like you should change your other behavior if the way you're behaving is causing you to lose.

The problem is when someone knows that something is stronger, but they come up with excuses. If you don't want to buy the next newest codex that comes out, then don't, but don't complain if you win less as a result of the choices you've made.

insaniak wrote:Balance doesn't mean every single thing in the game is equally good... it just means that each side should have a reasonably even chance of winning.

If both players show up with a mirror list, and make the exact same moves, and roll the exact same numbers on their dice, they have the exact chance of winning, but so what?

The definition of a strategy game is that player choices matter to the outcome of the game. If a player chooses to show up with nothing but guardsmen with lasguns, it's like choosing to start a chess game by moving F3. Just because a player can choose to act in a weak or foolish manner doesn't mean the game is lacking in some way.

insaniak wrote:But you know that, because you've been involved in every single previous discussion on the topic back to 1914, but you continue to misrepesent it. That gets old.

Yes, the reason I'm disagreeing is because I'm a huge liar.

I would have thought a moderator of all people would have a clearer understanding of Dakka rule #1.

Kiwidru wrote:
I dont mean to call you out, you jsut happened to be the black knight championing poor sportsmanship.

Nice job contributing to the "casual at all costs" stereotype. Accusing people of "championing poor sportsmanship" just because they took powerful units is TFG behavior, no matter how many times you try to justify it as "I just want to have fun".

[Sarcasm]which sounds like a blast for someone who doesnt even have the resources to put up a fight if he wanted to.[/Sarcasm]

Sigh. You do realize that the average game of 40k ends with the vast majority of both armies in the casualty pile, right? I was referring to a situation where I might be down to a single squad of guardsmen camping on an objective and a LRBT with half its guns blown off, but my opponent has a single Rhino left on the other side of the table and can't win the game. That's not a one-sided baby seal clubbing, that's the typical result of 5-7 turns in a game where stuff is meant to die as fast as possible.

How this is unfluffy is, quite simply, because units designated as troops have been the cornerstone of every army that has ever existed, with specialists operating in distinct unique situations which support the main force, not the other way around.

Deathwing, IG drop troops, Farsight crisis suit armies, etc.

It might be fun to make lists about elite commando brigades every so often because war does occasionally feature those types of battles, but there is a reason that the imperial guard arnt only made out of karskin, or that when we landed on normandy it wasnt jsut a couple of hundred of commandos.

And your point is? If I choose to represent a kasrkin unit with my IG army then why is that a problem? Am I obligated to buy a conscript horde and play it in 9/10 games just so I can meet your standards of having elite units be appropriately rare? Are you going to buy me that conscript horde, or do you expect me to spend my own money to comply with your version of the fluff?

The duplication units isnt an absolute branding of WAAC, but it is a fairly strong indicator. Especially at the expense of the notably weaker troops selections.

Only if you assume that taking a strong list is WAAC, which is a completely stupid definition of WAAC.

Again, you might not consider yourself, or even be, that far from center mast on the spectrum... but the brief dabbling my search did sort of indicates that you adhere to a similar mantra of gaming, even expanding my general notes to include articles that ive learned from this convo, specifically 'abandons list when units he likes are found to be ineffective', and 'creates army primarily on rules interactions'.

...

If you consider me to "adhere to a similar mantra of gaming" then you're really clueless about how this game works. You seem to expect everyone to just buy a bunch of tactical squads and never consider how to improve their strategy, but that makes you part of a tiny and irrelevant minority. If you can't even tolerate minimal discussion of what units to pick based on strategy instead of fluff then I have no idea how you find anyone to play games with.