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.

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

There is no 'right way' to have fun. 40k as a game is heavily dependent on consistent play groups that are interested in staying friends after the game simply because you can approach it so many different ways and mismatches lead to bitching and no fun.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking your opponent to bring or not bring anything It's a social event, and just as I can ask my friend to not bring red wine to a party you can ask for stuff...doesn't always mean you'll get it.
The danger is the slippery slope that previous posters have discussed, but if you're aware of it go right ahead.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?.

Then he has the option of choosing not to play against you.

In a casual game, it's perfectly acceptable to not want to play against certain units or armies. The point is that both players are supposed to enjoy the game. If your opponent has something that you don't want to play against, then discuss it with them. If the two of you are able to reach a compromise, then game on. If not, then you both go and find something else to do with your time.

Why so many people seem to be so dead set on insisting that a player should be forced to play a game that they don't enjoy is beyond me. This is a hobby, not a job.

It's the same reason people fielded CSM lists in 2nd ed that could shoot other lists off the table in a single round.

This one time this guy refused to play against knights.

We took him out back and beat his face in with metal dreads.

He learned his lesson.

True story.

 Toofast wrote:
This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
In my area we have a gentalmans agreement to give fair warning to your opponent before bringing a lord of war(a real one not the HQs who became lords of war).

It has worked out nicely as generally people enjoy the games significantly more that way. Plus there are some of us who have lords of war but wont use them unless the opponent has them as well so then I know im not being rude or mean by bringing it.

Well thats fine. Knights aren't Lord of Wars though, unless they're the Forge World knights in a non-Knight detachment.

Of course everyone has the right not to play against anyone, but if the reason is "I don't like your toy soldier" it comes across as pretty childish. Even more so when the complaints that they're overpowered are really not true.

There are some things I don't enjoy playing against, but I enjoy playing more than not playing. And I can deal with those things, in a way its a nice challenge.

I never refuse a game because of lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

Newbies are an exception. But than again we're probably playing at point levels where you can't actually field Knights so its not a problem.

Once we're at a level where a Knight can realistically be fielded, I'll field mine. The newbie is going to run into the eventually, better he finds out early he needs to be prepared. I'll even help him make lists which can deal with Knights.

The best way to teach a newbie is with real lists, but also with advice and other help. Help like "You probably shouldn't move those guys there" or "You should get some more melta in this list, maybe swap out X and drop Y so you can get Z"

This is why I only care about winning if its a fully competitive match.

If it's a casual game I don't give a feth whether I win or not. If I know I can't win I lose in style.

Kangodo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

Is this the classic North Korean "I will tell you how you should have fun!" argument?

And this is why threads like this always turn into a flame-war.
I don't like to play against SHV's in WH40k, so I MUST be cheap, lazy or just a bad player.

For me it's that if I bring mine and don't tell my opponent and I win just because it walked all over his army(literally sometimes), I don't enjoy the game as much. Now if my opponent says they are going to bring one I feel much less bad about dusting off my lord of war for a game. Several others have them and just don't want to rely on them as a crutch to win what could be a difficult game .

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course everyone has the right not to play against anyone, but if the reason is "I don't like your toy soldier" it comes across as pretty childish.

If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course everyone has the right not to play against anyone, but if the reason is "I don't like your toy soldier" it comes across as pretty childish.

If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

That's not the same thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

That's not the same thing.

But it is exactly the same.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
For me it's that if I bring mine and don't tell my opponent and I win just because it walked all over his army(literally sometimes), I don't enjoy the game as much. Now if my opponent says they are going to bring one I feel much less bad about dusting off my lord of war for a game. Several others have them and just don't want to rely on them as a crutch to win what could be a difficult game .

But not everyone is like that, some people like to win at any cost.
I personally haven't lost to Knights or other SHV's, but I don't like how they changed the game and I would rather avoid it.
A game against an Imperial Knight can be fun sometimes if I get at least a warning.

Of course it is.

40K is a game. It's something that you do for fun.

If you don't enjoy playing against particular units, or particular lists, or factions, or armies painted a particular colour, or particular players, or on certain days of the week, or against people using green dice, or against people who own cats, or in stores that have windows, or whatever... then choosing to not do so is not 'childish'. It's just choosing to not do something that you don't like doing.

There is no particularly good reason that someone should feel obligated to spend their leisure time doing something that they don't want to do.

IME, Knights are really only fun for the person playing with them.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with telling someone you'd rather not play against Knights, just like there is nothing wrong with telling someone you'd rather not play against Eldar, or an Unbound list, or a Transcendent Ctan

Life is short, and gaming time is precious. Spend your time having fun.

This reminds me of the time my buddy brought 3 drop podded special weapons teams and vets with meltas against my IK and it died turn two from the second volley of pods. Then I stopped taking knights and started winning more games. Gear your lists to kill knights and you will win more games because if you can kill a knight you can kill a lot of the other things in the game that are scary. Personally as dark eldar I wouldn't go anywhere without 3 venom's with blaster true born to deal with such nonsense.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?

Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.


Ultimately, every codex has the tools to deal with Knights. If a player doesn't take advantage of them that's his problem, not the guy with the Knights.

Welcome to False Equivalency Town.

The good news is that you won't be alone.

Kangodo wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

That's not the same thing.

But it is exactly the same.

No its not the same.

A better comparison would be asking for a biscuit, getting one, and then saying its not fair that I didn't give you a glass of lemonade as well.

If you want to play 40k, play 40k. Not 40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike.

Why should anyone waste time playing games that they don't think are fun?

 Grey Templar wrote:
People shouldn't show up to a Rock, Paper, Scissors tournament without Scissors.

Unfortunately the game is balanced such that TAC lists are a thing of myth and it's possible for your opponent to bring vastly more paper than your brought scissors to compete with because you also brought enough rocks and paper to deal with opponent's rocks and scissors of which this particular opponent didn't bring any, this makes for a boring game.

The whole idea that its not only ok to handicap players, but that its socially unacceptable to NOT handicap is baffling.

What? The idea is baffling because no one is saying it. No one is saying it's socially unacceptable to not handicap. I think it's socially unacceptable to assume you opponent isn't allowed to negotiate a game and must be forced to play you even if it's going to be a crap game.

No other game on the face of the earth encourages holding back, or even mandates it. You don't see people saying "Manning is OP, please ban!"

Manning? Is that a player of some sport? No one is saying you should have to hold back in a competitive environment, but in a social game, yeah, I think negotiations are perfectly fine. Also "no other game"... so you'd be fine if a professional player of sport X showed up to a local primary school and played at 100% and won the game 100-0?

Also you do have other games with handicaps that are used in social games.

People should play the game. Playing the game is fun. Whats not fun is telling someone they can't use a model they spent a ton of money on, and probably 5+ hours building and painting.

Playing a game you know the outcome of before it starts is fun for you? Ok, that's fine. I don't find it fun. I prefer to play a game where I think there's a somewhat equal chance of success for both sides.

If someone doesn't share my vision of what is fun I simply won't play against them, the only way you'll find out if someone is too different to enjoy a game with or whether they are on the same wavelength as you and are happy to compromise is to ask them, and it's totally acceptable to ask.

Why should someone suffer because of your lack of planning?

No one has to suffer. If you can't come to an agreement of what you'll find fun, just don't play a game and spend your evening doing something else or playing against someone else.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A better comparison would be asking for a biscuit, getting one, and then saying its not fair that I didn't give you a glass of lemonade as well.

If, by 'better' you mean 'completely unrelated' then yes, that would be a better comparison.


Here's what's happening here: You offer me a biscuit. I say 'Your biscuits normally have anchovies on them. I don't like anchovies. Do you have any other types of biscuits?'

At that point, you can offer me a different biscuit, I can accept the biscuit I don't like and eat it because, I don't know, that's manly or something... or I can choose to not take the biscuit.


One of those options is a bit weird... and yet you seem to think it's what people should feel obliged to do.

If you want to play 40k, play 40k. Not 40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike.

This is the 40K that tells us right at the front of the rulebook that we should feel free to alter the rules however we see fit?

That 40k?

 Grey Templar wrote:
No its not the same.
A better comparison would be asking for a biscuit, getting one, and then saying its not fair that I didn't give you a glass of lemonade as well.
If you want to play 40k, play 40k. Not 40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike.

No, I'm not saying something is fair.
I'm saying I am not going to play the game if I do not like the list I am playing against.
Or in an analogy: "I am not going to eat the biscuit if I do not like the biscuits that I can pick from."

And who are you to tell me what I should be playing?
I can give you my address, you could buy me an army, paint it and then compensate me for the hours.
Perhaps then I would allow you to tell me what kind of 40k I should be playing.
And until you do it I will continue to play '40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike' and I'll Forge the Narrative as I like it.

There is a guy in our group who got one Knight when they first came out. Nobody liked it, but we dealt with it. Then he got another Knight and started bringing lists with 2 of them. Again people were/are not happy. Now he has a "tournament" list with 3 of the damned things! Time before last when I played him I made if fairly clear I was NOT enjoying the game. I actually won, but it was just not all that much fun playing against 2 of the damned things. Our most recent game he "chose" not to bring them and instead brought a Dread Knight. At least that is something I can respond to in a number of ways.

The real bummer for me is not that I can't "deal" with 2 or even 3 knights, it is just that the game becomes somewhat of a roll off and whoever wins that takes the game. even when I win, I feel like I have lost against those things.

Nothing wrong with asking him to play something else. Be wary, he may disagree and want to run his Knights, but no one is forcing you two to play each other.

I think if you ask the other player not to play a knight, they should be well within their rights to dictate what you cannot play in exchange. It should be give and take.

IMHO, you shouldn't ask him/her not to. I see it as a challenge to bring down a Knight, and 2 would just be more fun. Go for it, as longs as you have plenty of S9 weapons, Lascannons FTW!

Life's too short to play a game you won't enjoy. If you don't enjoy playing against IK, then don't. There's lots of other things to do.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I think if you ask the other player not to play a knight, they should be well within their rights to dictate what you cannot play in exchange. It should be give and take.

Sure, go through the mighty BA codex and find something objectionable.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
This one time this guy refused to play against knights.

We took him out back and beat his face in with metal dreads.

He learned his lesson.

True story.

Dreadsock sock assault ?

It's not wrong to ask your opponent to play with/without anything.

It's also not wrong for him to refuse.

It's also not wrong for the two of you to not play each other because you can't agree on the type of game you'd like to play.

One of the three opponents I play the most plays GK. his army or more precise the models he owns destroy IG. 3 NDKS or fewer NDKS with centurions. after getting losing to him multiple times, and not wanting to play against eldar , which two of my other opponents played. I asked him to switch out. oddly he agreed. His new list had 0 ndks or centurions in it, no tigurius. What he did bring was ~300pts of GK and ~1200pts in night and imperial titan. Was a joy to play against.
IMO it is an unfixable thing. If someones armies can't deal with combination of some models, then the only way to have fun is to not play against people that have them. Problems of course start if the playgroup is small or 40% of all players suddenly play eldar or necron.