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.

 Ailaros wrote:
. Just because a player can choose to act in a weak or foolish manner doesn't mean the game is lacking in some way.

Sure. However, the fact that some armies are inherently stronger than others does.

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.

Here's the thing: when you have actively participated in prior discussions where people have explained what they mean when they ask for a balanced game, and you continue to misrepresent that argument in later threads, people are going to point out that you are misrepresenting the argument.

If you would rather people not point out that you are misrepresenting the argument, the solution is simple: Stop misrepresenting the argument.

The only thing you can really do is play with like minded people. You can't really change what people field if that's the pieces they enjoy, some people like WAAC and that is the game to them.

 Chaos Rising wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Have you tried extreme physical violence?

Exalted good sir!

Damn straight!! Exalted my good man!

 insaniak wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
. Just because a player can choose to act in a weak or foolish manner doesn't mean the game is lacking in some way.

Sure. However, the fact that some armies are inherently stronger than others does.

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.

Here's the thing: when you have actively participated in prior discussions where people have explained what they mean when they ask for a balanced game, and you continue to misrepresent that argument in later threads, people are going to point out that you are misrepresenting the argument.

If you would rather people not point out that you are misrepresenting the argument, the solution is simple: Stop misrepresenting the argument.

He chooses to misunderstand.
Balance does not equal sameness. It's been said eighty three billion times and he still does not understand.

One army being clearly stronger than another is not good for the game. Each army should have different play styles within the faction and some play styles won't go good against others, but each should be viable in most or at least some situations. Giving obvious advantages to one side without compensation to the other is pointless. If you want an asymetrical scenario, make it yourself, but don't have the main game like that. Each player should have a relatively equal chance of winning given that both players are equal.

Hi Dakka!

My gaming club has a problem with one player and we're not quite sure how to deal with him without just telling him to sod off.

See, we're all a fairly competitive bunch, and enjoy no holds barred lists and have a lot of fun coming up with new crazy combos to defeat each other. Everyone's having a great time.

Well, not quite everyone. There's this one guy with a truly awful list and pretty much zero grasp of tactics that keep making demands that everyone should change their lists so he can win. He doesn't seem to understand that the world does not, in fact, revolve around him, and that it's pretty selfish to just barge in and demand everyone else have less fun so he can have more.

He also keeps arguing in a way that makes us think he's under the impression that it's impossible for anyone (not just him) to have fun in any other way than his. It's kinda weird and has led to a few awkward exchanges.

So, Dakka, how do we deal with this guy? We don't want to be exclusionary, but at the same time we don't want to compromise the little hobby time we get every week just so that one guy can have his cake and eat it too.

Ailaros wrote:

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.

He said that because your interpretations of strategy and game balance are so bizzarely off-base that it is almost unbelievable. I don't think he meant to call you a liar, I don't think anyone doubts you believe what you say. Your stance on fundamentals of gaming are so bizarre that it immediately triggers the "troll-or-serious" flag. He did not disparage you. When someone keeps calling bananas shovels, people are gonna point it out.

Am I the only one whoose FLGS is a bunch of great people where the most competitive players seem to enjoy the game most, especially when the rest of the players have already ended their games and are watching others games. On the other hand those WAAC players, who only care about winning, mostly end up in poor places (positions? you get the idea ). Of course weaker players also enjoy their games, it's just that the better ones tend to laugh louder.

What i would suggest, Is to build a list so over powered you know you will smash certain players over and over again. They are not gonna wanna play someone who destroys the waac idea. then be all like hey i dont really wanna play this list wanna put together some fun lists and play them and hopefully they agree because they get a chance to maybe win. if they refuse to play you well you are in the same situation as you are now,

Yea, but the problem with that(for me) is by the time I had that overpowered list that would stomp on everything bought, assembled, and painted, there would be new rules out to nullify the list.

That's what I dislike the most about non-fluff oriented players. they constantly buy the new overpowered models that GW wants them to buy, they put them together with as much time and care as a PBJ and then, MAYBE they spray paint the mold line infested models and call it a day.

There's nothing wrong with being competitive, and wanting to win, but to just concern yourself with owning the 'best' army all the time is EXACTLY what GW hopes for. You're playing right into their hand when you go out and load up on Centurions, for example. 78 dollars for 3 of them. Disgusting. Yet there's a player at the store I like that must have a dozen of them painted with that loving black undercoat.

It sucks. I wish people would plan an army with some sort of cohesive theme, do a self respecting paintjob, and enjoy the hobby a little more than just rolling dice and arguing over who interprets the rules the right way.

I could get by with people arguing over rules and basically sucking the fun out of the game IF they put minimally respectable effort into enjoying the hobby. And yes I mean painting the GD models. It's hard enough to play this game without having NO CLUE what is across the table from you because its all one uniform shade of IDGAF.

To me, these people are the definition of the people GW caters to. People that like to buy citadel miniatures just because they like buying them. Its as easy as writing a stat line and some exclusive rules and these people buy it up hand over fist.

Sorry for the rant! Not really!

If thats what they enjoy, then more power to them.

Its absurd to impose your own restrictions and your own idea of fun on the others. Also, its absurd to have extensive negotiations before having a game. Those things were the reason I quit 40K for good, because it is unplayable without negotiating and without a like-minded group. In Dropzone Commander I can bring whatever list I feel like playing: I can play lots of infantry, I can rely on an Aircraft, I can put a force mostly consisting of armor, I can bring a super heavy and so on. And no matter what I choose, I am almost guaranteed to have a close and exciting game. This is sadly impossible in 40K.

Assuming that finding a new LGS may be difficult, and that you come to understand that competitive players are not the same thing as WAAC players. Try this.

Set up a table with lots of LOS blocking terrain as well as a good amount of Area terrain of one kind or another. Seek out an opponent who is willing to play a Maelstrom of War battle at 1K points on that table. Personally I'd ask that you house rule so that any game start impossible cards can be automatically discarded and replaced, but that's me.

Once you are at this point. PLAY THE MISSION! You'll be surprised what your foot guard can do. They may not win all the time. But at that point level you have already taken the teeth out of most competitive lists, which should enable you to stick to the mission, hug terrain to help keep your guardsmen alive, and probably remove any chance of embarassing yourself.

Also, have you thought about optimizing your own list? I'm not talking about scrapping what you have. But there are multiple ways of building a 1K foot guard list with any given collection of models. Some are more "competitive" than others, have you looked into how to get the most out of your collection?

 Ravenous D wrote:
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,

If he's making "demands" maybe, but really it's hardly unreasonable to ask people to tone down their lists when you have no option but to play what you have.

Not having enough models to put together a competitive army is just a reality for a lot of people, given it is expensive and time consuming to do.

The thing decent humans would do is understand not everyone can put together a competitive list off the cuff and make a concession so that the game is fun for all (trouncing him game after game typically isn't fun for the aforementioned decent humans).

VanHallan wrote:
Yea, but the problem with that(for me) is by the time I had that overpowered list that would stomp on everything bought, assembled, and painted, there would be new rules out to nullify the list.

That's what I dislike the most about non-fluff oriented players. they constantly buy the new overpowered models that GW wants them to buy, they put them together with as much time and care as a PBJ and then, MAYBE they spray paint the mold line infested models and call it a day.

There's nothing wrong with being competitive, and wanting to win, but to just concern yourself with owning the 'best' army all the time is EXACTLY what GW hopes for. You're playing right into their hand when you go out and load up on Centurions, for example. 78 dollars for 3 of them. Disgusting. Yet there's a player at the store I like that must have a dozen of them painted with that loving black undercoat.

It sucks. I wish people would plan an army with some sort of cohesive theme, do a self respecting paintjob, and enjoy the hobby a little more than just rolling dice and arguing over who interprets the rules the right way.

I could get by with people arguing over rules and basically sucking the fun out of the game IF they put minimally respectable effort into enjoying the hobby. And yes I mean painting the GD models. It's hard enough to play this game without having NO CLUE what is across the table from you because its all one uniform shade of IDGAF.

To me, these people are the definition of the people GW caters to. People that like to buy citadel miniatures just because they like buying them. Its as easy as writing a stat line and some exclusive rules and these people buy it up hand over fist.

Sorry for the rant! Not really!

Yep, competitive players suck at making cool armies.


I can't even find any examples of cool tournament armies anywhere!

At all!

Also:
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220947_zps74a483dc.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220982_zps73240483.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220984_zpsae69f8c8.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220986_zpsa0fd5ce6.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220987_zps6b0faee6.jpg

Peregrine, honest question: How old are you? i only ask because i specifically address your statements, offer logical rebuttal, and then you extrapolate my statements out to some extremity that i never claimed to support. Also, it is fairly daft to belittle one side of an issue as trying to force their will upon you and all the fallacies that includes, while you are LITERALLY arguing for the exact same measure to be forced upon them. The only stance to have is one of compromise. Otherwise you are, by default, attempting to yoke someone with the opposite end of exact noose you are fear they are putting on you.

I didnt say that there isnt a place in this game for hardcore/play to win style lists, AT ALL, or even close. all i said is that if one guy has minimal resources such that he cannot jsut "play a better list", has clearly played enough games to the standards of players that do have those resources to come to the conclusion that he hasnt enjoyed them (presumably because they wernt competitive), and has attempted to get them to reciprocate the gesture. They should oblige him on occasion without making a big farking issue about it. To make it perfectly clear: OP has reached across the isle and played the game in the manner you suggest, and it is logical for him to expect his 'friends' to reciprocate the effort occasionally.

obviously i cant compete with your 16 posts a day, because i have a job and family. So, im not even gonna attempt this back and forth. You are 'in the right' according to GW, and they cater specifically to people of your Ayn Randian disposition. which is exactly why they are in the situation they are currently in. Average people dont want to put up with some stupid bull sh!t, just to be trapped across the table from some socially inept dude that cant even entertain an idea that contradicts with his own personal beliefs.

If you only want to play top tier lists, then play at tournaments, or against like minded people, or on vassal. If you want to interact socially with someone in casual competition, do it such that both of you are proud to have played the game.

it makes no sense for a martial arts sensei to break every bone in a first timers body, and then say "you should have fought me better, you are at fault" in reality if he has those aspirations he should seek out other masters to sharpen his blade against, not helpless noobs.

or a professional sports team crushes a paraplegic equivalent in an friendly game and then say, "you should have thought about that before you were handicapped" in reality the outcome was known from the start, and no one really gains anything but negative emotions from the experience.

or The Kurgan roaming though a highland battle slaying any puny human that stands in his way, and then saying "you should have thought about that before you were mortal" in reality he should seek out others that experience the quickening...

With those as my closing thoughts, i rest my case and bow out of this exchange.

Eh, just get rickrolled about 8~10 times before they peter out and lose steam. Then maybe they'll try to step it back a bit. Focus on knowing the people and not the game.

Or play something else without the power creep.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Assuming that finding a new LGS may be difficult, and that you come to understand that competitive players are not the same thing as WAAC players. Try this.

Set up a table with lots of LOS blocking terrain as well as a good amount of Area terrain of one kind or another. Seek out an opponent who is willing to play a Maelstrom of War battle at 1K points on that table. Personally I'd ask that you house rule so that any game start impossible cards can be automatically discarded and replaced, but that's me.

Once you are at this point. PLAY THE MISSION! You'll be surprised what your foot guard can do. They may not win all the time. But at that point level you have already taken the teeth out of most competitive lists, which should enable you to stick to the mission, hug terrain to help keep your guardsmen alive, and probably remove any chance of embarassing yourself.

Also, have you thought about optimizing your own list? I'm not talking about scrapping what you have. But there are multiple ways of building a 1K foot guard list with any given collection of models. Some are more "competitive" than others, have you looked into how to get the most out of your collection?

the guy who is complaining insists that the terrain is symmetrical and that it must be evenly distributed. Good advice though, i will need to read up on the maelstrom stüf.

I have to agree with Peregrine:
"Competitive play" is no less valid than casual play in the pursuit of fun.

I just find that since 40k is so extremely unbalanced that power of army lists are all over the map.

I think the only means around this problem is to talk to your potential opponent and settle on expectations of about what to bring.
The OP gives the impression that the terms of play are not negotiable which appears to be getting on a high horse.

The goal is to somehow arrange to have a "close" game so it is challenging for both players even if some people prefer destroying their opponent with little resistance...

 Talizvar wrote:
I have to agree with Peregrine:
"Competitive play" is no less valid than casual play in the pursuit of fun.

I just find that since 40k is so extremely unbalanced that power of army lists are all over the map.

I think the only means around this problem is to talk to your potential opponent and settle on expectations of about what to bring.
The OP gives the impression that the terms of play are not negotiable which appears to be getting on a high horse.

The goal is to somehow arrange to have a "close" game so it is challenging for both players even if some people prefer destroying their opponent with little resistance...

IMO close games are more fun, but isn't possible that some players have fun by completely destroying their opponents?

"Completely destroying your opponent" doesn't happen in a balanced game unless there are some really crazy dice streaks happening. Which is why competitive and casual gamers have such a massive divide in 40k while other tabletop wargames do not experience this.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Have you tried extreme physical violence?

Hahahaha this made me laugh so hard XD
Khorne approves this

 Thud wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
Yea, but the problem with that(for me) is by the time I had that overpowered list that would stomp on everything bought, assembled, and painted, there would be new rules out to nullify the list.

That's what I dislike the most about non-fluff oriented players. they constantly buy the new overpowered models that GW wants them to buy, they put them together with as much time and care as a PBJ and then, MAYBE they spray paint the mold line infested models and call it a day.

There's nothing wrong with being competitive, and wanting to win, but to just concern yourself with owning the 'best' army all the time is EXACTLY what GW hopes for. You're playing right into their hand when you go out and load up on Centurions, for example. 78 dollars for 3 of them. Disgusting. Yet there's a player at the store I like that must have a dozen of them painted with that loving black undercoat.

It sucks. I wish people would plan an army with some sort of cohesive theme, do a self respecting paintjob, and enjoy the hobby a little more than just rolling dice and arguing over who interprets the rules the right way.

I could get by with people arguing over rules and basically sucking the fun out of the game IF they put minimally respectable effort into enjoying the hobby. And yes I mean painting the GD models. It's hard enough to play this game without having NO CLUE what is across the table from you because its all one uniform shade of IDGAF.

To me, these people are the definition of the people GW caters to. People that like to buy citadel miniatures just because they like buying them. Its as easy as writing a stat line and some exclusive rules and these people buy it up hand over fist.

Sorry for the rant! Not really!

Yep, competitive players suck at making cool armies.


I can't even find any examples of cool tournament armies anywhere!

At all!

Also:
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220947_zps74a483dc.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220982_zps73240483.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220984_zpsae69f8c8.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220986_zpsa0fd5ce6.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab246/jy2cool/2014%20BAO%20-%20July/P1220987_zps6b0faee6.jpg

Thanks for all the cool pictures of good looking armies. I find them more enjoyable than the game to be honest. I'm just talking about local players. We had a tournament in town last year and those people did bring nicely painted lists. It was like a miracle to me. When I go to the weekly open game night, I believe I am the only one who paints his models. Even people that have painted models ususally bought them that way off of ebay.

Truthfully I think we can all agree it is best for all involved when players do the hobby, and paint a force, and then play competitively. That's fun for both parties. When people are only into one or the other, it might be fun as an individual, but it restricts how much fun you can have with other people and 40k. That's absolutely their right to do so, and its my right to say, well, that kind of sucks.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

Gotit, you don't know what balance is, thank you for pointing that out. Just wanted to make sure.

Oh well, it IS a social game so we all have varying opinions and some less than appealing habits.

I will pick "overzealous" over apathy any day.

Show some love for the game and try at least the 3 color paint job and models with all their parts as others have pointed out the unfinished models really point to that army configuration is the flavor of the week.

Might as well print model cutouts (seen it done!).

Play that nasty optimized army list once, make one of your own for giggles, then talk about a "scenario" so you can both find a middle ground. You may manage to have a lot of fun with those three games.

Ahhhh, another theatrical show of Peregrine championing poor sportsmanship and enforcing how everyone should pay way too much to play and call it all "a different version of fun" followed by Ailaros with his misinterpretations of peoples comments and not understanding how universal balance (or for better words in terms of wargaming a healthy imbalance) in 40k would be better all around..



Good show ladies and gents, well worth the popcorn and laughs

Anyho back to reasonable comments to the OP, honestly it seems like you both need to find a middle ground to stand on, try making new missions or scenarios for you to both enjoy for example..

I feel as if we need more info on this maybe answering the following questions to give more depth too the scenario would help us understand yours and maybe your opponent(s) positions..

1) Is this your group or just one person? or is your group one person?

2) What sort of exact list does he play? could you send us yours and your opponents lists?

3) What sort of "unreasonable" (as your opponent calls it) demands do you ask of your opponent exactly?

4) where exactly do you game? maybe there are other gaming clubs nearby that you do not know of..

I feel as if these questions would help us with the amount of depth with the situation at hand, otherwise we get into the philosophies and/or politics of gaming in 40k that these threads usually ensue..

 happygolucky wrote:
Ahhhh, another theatrical show of Peregrine championing poor sportsmanship and enforcing how everyone should pay way too much to play and call it all "a different version of fun"

Congratulations, breaking rule #1 and being a dishonest troll in one sentence! I never said that everyone should play competitive/optimized lists, I said that the people who are playing those lists are having fun and talking about how your preferred level of list optimization is the One True Fun is arrogant and obnoxious. And it isn't poor sportsmanship to take a good list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kiwidru wrote:
Peregrine, honest question: How old are you?

Honest question: do you think that simply violating rule #1 often enough is a proper substitute for a real argument? Because so far you've called me a "black knight championing poor sportsmanship", accused me of being young and immature, claimed that I have no life because I post too much, implied that I'm some kind of Ayn Rand cultist, etc. I don't need to "take anything to extremes" when your own words make it perfectly clear that you think playing competitively is WAAC/TFG behavior.

If you only want to play top tier lists, then play at tournaments, or against like minded people, or on vassal.

And that's what the competitive players are doing. They're happily playing competitive games with optimized lists, and the OP wants them to stop doing it so that they can have a better chance of winning without having to change their own list to fit the local metagame.

 Peregrine wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Ahhhh, another theatrical show of Peregrine championing poor sportsmanship and enforcing how everyone should pay way too much to play and call it all "a different version of fun"

Congratulations, breaking rule #1 and being a dishonest troll in one sentence! I never said that everyone should play competitive/optimized lists, I said that the people who are playing those lists are having fun and talking about how your preferred level of list optimization is the One True Fun is arrogant and obnoxious. And it isn't poor sportsmanship to take a good list.

Have you read what you have wrote? You are heavily implying that the OP should play towards his/her opponents standards which involves using money which the OP does not seem to have, playing in a way the OP does not deem as fun, as I have said im my OP there is way too much variables that need exploring before we can say much more.

And its not poor sports to take a good list, agreed here, but it is poor sports for the OP's opponent to call his "demands" and therefore his way of fun "unreasonable" because his type of "fun" is different to his opponents, a good general and a good sport adapts to the conditions and proceeds to gain victory from there, not shove their nose up because they don't like a certain rule, afterall the direction of this edition is that its "Warhammer 40,000: sandbox edition" and so with that people should learn to adapt to it where both players get something and not throw up one-sided games..

As to the "trolling", take a light jest when its thrown at you and have a laugh

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

The issue is that it takes 2 people to play this game, right off the bat I pictured the situation.

Guy walks in and asks for a game but says he only has a 1000pts, I follow that up asking if he is new, he says no he just likes the game better at that level *Red Flag 1 that Im about to play a language! --Janthkin*

I then throw some stuff together since the game is normally played 1500pts+ and he then starts on what I can or cannot use *Red Flag 2*

At this point I direct him to play against someone else because I've played enough people like that and I know red flag 3 is coming and its nothing but a gak show of them bitching about rules, or rather his special version of which rules he finds acceptable to follow.

 happygolucky wrote:
Have you read what you have wrote? You are heavily implying that the OP should play towards his/her opponents standards which involves using money which the OP does not seem to have, playing in a way the OP does not deem as fun, as I have said im my OP there is way too much variables that need exploring before we can say much more.

Or there's an option: don't play against the competitive players. If you and your potential opponent have completely incompatible ideas about what is fun then just accept it, move on, and find someone else who shares your ideas about what makes a fun game. Don't act like you're entitled to play against them and have an equal chance of winning, even if it means that they have to give up the units/lists they enjoy using and bring weaker stuff instead.

Appologies if this has been mentioned but have you tried looking through the list of scenarios and found any that tend (in general) to not reward the kind of listbuilding that is your local meta?

If you can't get them to play your way, maybe you can at least get them into a scenario that evens the odds just a bit.