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 go to have a good competitive game, but I want to have a fun time more than I want to win.

For me, I am an avid tournament gamer, playing with and against absolute filth, however I also love playing narrative based games with my mates.

The more games the merrier

 krodarklorr wrote:
To the OP, I'm right there with you. I like to somehow stick to fluff, and avoid cheese, but still have a decent competitive list. My attitude probably isn't the best, I'll admit.

I'm quite similar - I generally have some sort of theme in mind when I build an army, and try to stick to it whilst still remaining reasonably competitive. I don't always use the best stuff - such as taking Gauntlets of Fire on my Necron Overlord, instead of the superior Warscythe. But, I still try to create decent lists within my own constraints.

However, in this regard, the cost of the IG wargear has been getting on my nerves. I can only presume that someone on the GW design team once had his Chapter Master roll a bunch of 1s and lose to a IG Commissar - because nothing else can explain prices this ridiculous. Why do we pay SM prices for power weapons and power fists, even though we have worse WS, Strength, I and survivability? Not to mention the fact that we generally want to avoid combat. Why does the Death Mask cost 30 points for a measly +1 invulnerable save and IWND on a T3 model? It could cost half of that and still wouldn't be even remotely OP. Why does the Blade of Conquest cost as much as the already-overpriced Power Fist, even though it's about half as useful?

The worst part is it's not like any of the above are even useful. If I wanted to make a strong list, I wouldn't bother taking any of them - even if they were priced reasonably. But, instead, I'm taking them to try and give my characters a bit of flavour, Why do I need to pay though the nose for this privilege? I thought GW wanted us to "forge the narrative", yet it seems like for all their spouting that line they then go out of their way to make doing do difficult.

/Rant

I don't build lists to win every game as my lists usually are based around units I like the look of or want in the army and go from there. Winning is always nice but if I don't it doesn't bother me. I play as I enjoy the game and like seeing nicely painted miniatures fighting against each other plus I want to relax rather than get stretched. I suppose for me I play as part of a story and the cool stuff that can happen in a game rather than WAAC!

I have a pretty laid back attitude to the gaming aspect and hope to keep it that way.

 vipoid wrote:

However, in this regard, the cost of the IG wargear has been getting on my nerves. I can only presume that someone on the GW design team once had his Chapter Master roll a bunch of 1s and lose to a IG Commissar - because nothing else can explain prices this ridiculous. Why do we pay SM prices for power weapons and power fists, even though we have worse WS, Strength, I and survivability? Not to mention the fact that we generally want to avoid combat. Why does the Death Mask cost 30 points for a measly +1 invulnerable save and IWND on a T3 model? It could cost half of that and still wouldn't be even remotely OP. Why does the Blade of Conquest cost as much as the already-overpriced Power Fist, even though it's about half as useful?

The worst part is it's not like any of the above are even useful. If I wanted to make a strong list, I wouldn't bother taking any of them - even if they were priced reasonably. But, instead, I'm taking them to try and give my characters a bit of flavour, Why do I need to pay though the nose for this privilege? I thought GW wanted us to "forge the narrative", yet it seems like for all their spouting that line they then go out of their way to make doing do difficult.

/Rant

On the plus side, our troops can look like this:

-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]

[Total: 930 pts]

Not the most competitive selection, but it's hilarious, and scares the pants off my meta's players

 Selym wrote:

On the plus side, our troops can look like this:

-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]
-Veterans w/Demolitions, Chimera [155 pts]

[Total: 930 pts]

Not the most competitive selection, but it's hilarious, and scares the pants off my meta's players

OT but I thought to mention it since this came up in my gaming group. Since there are different views about using one grenade per phase, the above list may not be as great, since you are paying 30pts for one melta bomb per phase, against some players who interpret so.

Ok back on track. Since the above rule discrepancy was discussed in YMDC previously.

I go into a game to win, but tend to find myself more often than not trying to orchestrate epic events during the game like specific duels, last stands for certain units in my army and such, so I guess I often shift from competitive play to entirely narrative. However if my army have no hope then I would refuse play, simply because it would be pointless for everyone involved.