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.

 Brennonjw wrote:
I don't think the 'primary' focus is on winning, as much as it is on playing a game, and having an enjoyable time.

locarno24 wrote:
No. Both sides having fun is the primary point.

Attempting to win is supposed to be the means through which you achieve the desired end, which is to have fun. If someone wins the game, and the loser feels that they didn't enjoy the experience, then one of two things have happened: either the loser is a sore one, or the game's rules have an imbalance that gave the winner such an overwhelming advantage that the loser couldn't overcome it. If the latter situation is the case, then what that means is that the rules need to be fixed. Blaming the winner for literally just playing the game via the rules designed by the developers is pointless.

Spamming the biggest, baddest unit you can field en mass and then saying Forgeworld is the reason that your list is broken is like smashing a mailbox with a bat, and then blaming the bat manufacturer instead of yourself. If you bring 9 quad-mortars, a spartan, and 2 fire raptors in one list, you're being the donkey-cave, not forgeworld for having 'broken rules.' By this logic: It's not the eldar players fault that he brought only scat-bikes, D wraiths, and warp spiders to a friendly game, it's GW's for giving him the ability to. Which is just dumb.

If Forgeworld/Games Workshop give their rules to you in exchange for your money under the promise that their rules are high-quality and balanced, and it turns out that they aren't, then the responsibility is on them to fix them so that they match what was advertised.

IDK on that point. For example: Monstrous creature rules are a bit too strong at the moment. So say someone's Tau list is (somehow) 3 riptides, a ghost keel, a stormsurge, and the big Forge world suit among other things. When they win every game against their 'Nid playing buddy without ever trying to change their own list and leaping strait to blaming GW, it seems like a sign of a person who refuses to take responsibility for what they themselves did.

This problem is more obvious in 30k: to bring an "OP" list you really do need to spam the best of the best, and if you're doing that GW is not to blame: the player is since THEY chose to build their list in that manner. Now if GW made a rule called: you win if you bring a spartan and and say "i win", THEN it would be GWs fault. we don't blame ford for human error caused car accidents, why do we blame GW for human caused OP lists?

 Brennonjw wrote:
When they win every game against their 'Nid playing buddy without ever trying to change their own list and leaping strait to blaming GW, it seems like a sign of a person who refuses to take responsibility for what they themselves did.

Exactly. The Tyranid player should take responsibility for their actions, build a better list, and compete on an even level with the Tau player.

This problem is more obvious in 30k: to bring an "OP" list you really do need to spam the best of the best, and if you're doing that GW is not to blame: the player is since THEY chose to build their list in that manner.

No, it's GW's fault. Spamming good units is a perfectly legitimate way to play the game. If the rules make this a bad experience for some people then the problem is broken rules, not the fact that some players didn't follow your unwritten rules about how they should build their armies.

No the answer in 30k is to build a mirror list and then flip a coin. I have been over to Nottingham twice and in both of my pilgrimages I have had my faith in this hobby restored and would like to think I am responsible for 30k being as big as it is in my area.

Show up to one of our events with 9 phosphex quad mortars a Typhon and twenty tacticals and good luck getting a game.

Actually it won't happen. Wanna pull that crap, go play 40k.

yeah, that unwritten rule of: "Don't bring only the best units to friendly (or pick-up) games and then blame the other guy for not being good enough when you win, and then using the company as a scape-goat if you get called out." My bad, I should have known that I was in the wrong.


EDIT: Peregrine, either you're messing with me (and doing a wonderful job, BTW ). Or you must really dislike your local Warhammer buddies.

 Brennonjw wrote:
yeah, that unwritten rule of: "Don't bring only the best units to friendly (or pick-up) games and then blame the other guy for not being good enough when you win, and then using the company as a scape-goat if you get called out." My bad, I should have known that I was in the wrong.

What about the unwritten rule of "don't bring bad lists that can't compete with the best lists to a friendly (or pick-up) game and then blame the other guy for being too good when you lose, then using the company as a scapegoat if you get called out"? Why is it always the player with the stronger list that is responsible for making sure that both players have an equal chance of winning? Why doesn't the player with the weaker list have an obligation to bring a better list to a pick-up game, and save the weak lists for special pre-negotiated games against other people with similar weak lists?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
yeah, that unwritten rule of: "Don't bring only the best units to friendly (or pick-up) games and then blame the other guy for not being good enough when you win, and then using the company as a scape-goat if you get called out." My bad, I should have known that I was in the wrong.

What about the unwritten rule of "don't bring bad lists that can't compete with the best lists to a friendly (or pick-up) game and then blame the other guy for being too good when you lose, then using the company as a scapegoat if you get called out"? Why is it always the player with the stronger list that is responsible for making sure that both players have an equal chance of winning? Why doesn't the player with the weaker list have an obligation to bring a better list to a pick-up game, and save the weak lists for special pre-negotiated games against other people with similar weak lists?

Wait...

So unless I bring something that can compete with 9 phosphex quad mortars, a Typhon and an allied Knight house I am doing it wrong?

Please tell me that's not what you mean, because if it is I will happily buy you 30 scat bikes and a couple of wraithknights so you can play something you enjoy.

valace2 wrote:
So unless I bring something that can compete with 9 phosphex quad mortars, a Typhon and an allied Knight house I am doing it wrong?

Only if you're going to complain about how the guy who brought that list is doing something wrong. If you're going to attempt to impose an obligation to bring a weaker list on them then you need to accept a matching obligation to bring a stronger list. However, if you are willing to allow each player to bring whatever they want without judgment then this isn't an issue.

The strogn vs fluffy list thing is never going to have a single answer you know right guys?
Some people, to them fun is winning, and when they don't win it isn't fun. To others just playing the game is fun - its the type of mentality a person has.
Secondly - I don't care if someone wipes the table with me because their list is OP, as long as I am learning. Around here across various hobbys (Warmachine, 30k, 40k...) the people that take it seriously, go to tournaments etc. They often play to win - however if they flog you they are happy to talk you through your options, what you could have done better, what to try next time to counter what etc etc... If people are going to flog people they should at least be helpful and constructive in building the community.

Also, id much prefer to play against an OP list than I would have a game where you roll like utter gak - losing from something that is beyond your control, I get dice a random but when you start failing things like 10 out of 12 3+ saves...it pisses me off to no end!

those who bring 6+ quad mortars

I actually experienced this before 30k was a thing. My termagant/tervigon "bughouse swarm" tyranids, a couple of editions ago, got paired at a Warhammer World Forge World event against a (beautifully painted) Death Korps Siege Army with 3 batteries of 3 thud guns each.

I think turn one can pretty much be summed up with the phrase "oh dear god not the face".

Great game, but of course (a) they didn't do much to monstrous creatures and (b) they've since got so much nastier it's untrue (BS4 astartes crew, no turn spent reloading every two turns firing, phosphex canister shot)

I don't even see how this is a discussion any more. It's pretty simple: If you don't like playing against someone, don't.

If you want a highly tactical game where you do your utmost best to win, play others like that.
If you want to play a fluffy game, play others like that.

No one is right or wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:


CASUAL AT ALL COSTS OBEY MY FLUFF OR YOU ARE A WAAC TFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one is stopping you from building your hardcore minmaxed list and patting yourself on the back for that.

Of course, as people's patience run out and you run out of people to play with, you can just as happily sit in your dark corner and tell yourself that they are TFGs who enforce their opinions on others.

It is not my business. I am just happy nobody thinks like you do here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
However, if you are willing to allow each player to bring whatever they want without judgment then this isn't an issue.

Our campaign organiser has been generous enough with his campaign to do it like this (we mainly play campaign games).

Fortunately nobody has abused it yet.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Nope, not 'my opinion' (like it's only me who thinks this!) It's the attitude espoused by everyone i've ever played against and mirrored by most in this thread.

The fact that other people share your opinion doesn't make it any less of an opinion.

No, it makes it the 'general concensus' as well.

If you have 'fun' breaking the rules of the game, thats cool, but is also catered for nicely by 40k - it's geared toward that and has even got some alien races to play as.

And? Why are competitive players limited to playing only one game? The fact that 40k exists doesn't mean that 30k isn't available, just like the existence of MTG doesn't prevent a competitive player from playing X-Wing.

Again, you miss the point: people dislike powergamers so much they are willing to buy a pure forgeworld 30k army and books just to get away from it!
What you're doing is seeing a gaming system where people do not powergame and thinking "why aren't they taking the ultimate stuff? the fewlz! i'll show them how to play this game properly!!" neglecting the fact that a lot of HH players are here to get away from that BS attitude. What you're doing is farting in a lift and inviting everyone else to take a sniff and join in because it's 'funny'.

The point of the HH was as an expansion of the 40k rulebook to play battles set in the pre-history of the 40k universe;
The first book betrayal was set on isstvan3, the second was set on isstvan5 and both were nothing but 'historical re-encatments' - if you got into it between book 1 and two you got into it for that

That's funny, because I seem to remember every 30k book having general rules for building your own armies and fighting random battles with them, not just "historical" scenarios. Perhaps you got a different version of the book that has some pages missing?

Oh dear, i really am going to pop if you keep this up!!
Betrayal: page 143 - "The isstvan 3 campaign presented in this section allows you and your friends to refight the desperate and bloody battles of the betrayal and slaughter which set the galaxy of the 31st millennium afire. Designed to be used with the crusade legion army list presented later in this book, this chapter offers a structured narrative campaign in which you take command of the forces ranged on isstvan 3. there are new missions, rules for scenery and battlefield traits, and a story driven timeline of events which frames the games you will play"
It also says..
"The Isstvan 3 campaign shown here is a narrative campaign system designed for use with the 6th edition rulebook of warhammer 40,000...."

Massacre: page 170 - "The following section is designed as a campaign 'toolkit' to let you and your friendsfight out the cataclysmic batyle of the dropsite massacre, and the deadly handful of hours on Isstvan 5 in your own exciting tabletop battles of warhammer 40,000. It is based on the narrative weight of the story and the forces featured in this book and it's predecessor 'betrayal' and the forthcoming book 3 extermination, and can be played out in conjunction with those books as a massive linked campaign with..."
It also says..
"The dropsite massacre campaign shown here is a narrative campaign system designed for use with the 6th edition of warhammer 40,000"

If you do own the books, you clearly skipped to the army list and stayed there.

Also; 'stop acting like you are the only one who knows how to have fun'?
Because nobody but YOU knows how to have fun i suppose?

I said no such thing. Do you honestly not understand the difference between "my way of having fun is correct, not yours" and "there is more than one way to have fun, yours isn't the only one"?

For me 30k is all about the fluff. You don't always have to win to have fun.

Playing 'best in slot' isn't an issue if a game is balanced properly. 40k is horribly unbalanced. 30k is pretty well balanced.

This is why I have no problem with people playing to win, but I've totally given up on 40k.

Warham is a strategy game, and it has points for a reason. If you're choosing to deliberately hobble your army for fluff reasons or because you feel your army is overpowered, how can you be sure how much your opponent will do the same? It's all pretty arbitrary at that point and you might as well be playing Age of Sigmar.

This is why when I'm playing in tournaments, or with randos at the gaming store, I try to make the best list I can. I'm still limited by the models I physically possess, as is everyone, so I can't just clog a table with quad-mortars because it seems like a good idea on paper, and I'm not opposed to taking a weird list because it seems fun (I once had a jokaero punch out a terminator chamption, moments like that make the game for me!), but when I do, I'll still try and make sure it's the best version of that weird list possible.

Case in point, I have a small group of people who live in my apt building I'll still play 40k with. One ork player, one chaos space marine player, and me (a blood angel player). Our armies are pretty balanced against each other. Further more we've agreed in advance, no fliers or superheavies, since the ork guy owns one stompa that we think is weirdly balanced, and I'm the only one who owns fliers. So we're in effect all playing by the same rules, agreed upon in advance, and after that we can just try and make the best lists possible with the models we have, and still have fun games against each other.

The "best in slot" mentality is a natural thing and I don't think we can't acknowledge that. BUT! by doing so we can combat it. Fluff should always' be your guide.

As for how fluffy a list should be? IMHO if you can say to yourself that I can make this list more fluffy? then it's not fluffy enough.

A good way to play fluffy Legion marines is to build one of each of your legion-specific units and take at least 2 legion-specific units each game.

 jasper76 wrote:
A good way to play fluffy Legion marines is to build one of each of your legion-specific units and take at least 2 legion-specific units each game.

I'm not sure I agree. take death guard for example: Why would every one of their battles include the elite guards? as well as that, why would every battle have specialized chem terminators? I like the idea, but I don't think it always applies (Same goes for Imperial Fists: not every battle is gonna have lots of breachers or elite stabby crusader infantry)

I was offering more of a guideline than a hard-in-place rule. I don't know about each and every Legions special units. I'd just think if you were looking for a good way to accelerate from zero to fluff, the legion-specific units would be a good way to go, generally speaking.

 SirDonlad wrote:
No, it makes it the 'general concensus' as well.

And? The fact that a lot of players, even enough players for "general consensus" to be an appropriate description, have decided that competitive play is not welcome in their community does not change the fact that this "don't build powerful lists" rule is not found in the rulebook. It's nothing more than personal opinions about how to have fun the right way, combined with a bizarre need to declare that other people are having fun the wrong way.

Again, you miss the point: people dislike powergamers so much they are willing to buy a pure forgeworld 30k army and books just to get away from it!

That's nice. On the other hand some people buy 30k to play it competitively. And the anti-powergamer crowd doesn't get to claim exclusive ownership of 30k.

What you're doing is farting in a lift and inviting everyone else to take a sniff and join in because it's 'funny'.

And what you're doing is declaring that your way of having fun is the only acceptable way, and everyone who wants to play the game in ways you don't enjoy is some kind of TFG. I think it should be obvious why this is rather poor behavior.

Oh dear, i really am going to pop if you keep this up!!

{rulebook quotes}

If you do own the books, you clearly skipped to the army list and stayed there.

Did you even read what I said? I said that the books aren't just for "historical" missions, not that they don't contain "historical" missions or campaigns. In addition to those missions and campaigns you will find general rules and army lists for playing random "let's play a 2500 point game of 30k" games with no story elements in their rules. Whether you admit it or not FW has published a game system that supports non-"historical" gaming just fine.

I think he intent of the OP was to find a way to build lists that are both fluffy and competitive, rather than to endlessly debate the pros and cons of powergaming vs. fluff gaming.

FWIW, Any gamer worth their salt knows that fluff gaming is like 20x more fun than powergaming, and that powergamers are just fluff gamers hoping to meet a decent human being to play fluffy games with.

(Im the OP, btw.)

To adress Peregrine, you bring up some good points that I have seen you raise in similar threads. I for one game for a mix of fluff and winning. Thanks for sharing your point of view though.

From my recent experience with my gaming community, I take a pretty fluffy list at 2k, and I still find it stronger than other people's. However, I won't tone it down often because I think it's really cool and fits Iron Warriors fluff wise.

Siege Breaker in cata armor with 5x tyrants
Delegates for Ironfire ROW
3x Quad Mortar (usually not phosphex)
2x Medusa
2x 20 tactical with apoths
Contemptor with dual kheres

However, winning becomes not fun when it's too easy. So when I know I am facing a guy who runs weak lists, I tone mine down too so we both have fun.

On the topic of preventing the WAAC mentality , it seems that all we have to do is learn from the 40k scene and not be WAAC. This means try to run narrative campaigns and don't bring insane lists.

There's also a line for fluffy army that are very strong. As a 40k example, an Iyanden wraith force or a White Scars Gladius are both very fluffy and extremly powerful, cheesy even.

Unfortunately, a CSM thousand sons or IG Foot platoon army can also be super fluffy and total junk.

If you pit one of the former against one of the later, it's not going to result in a fun game (to be honest, it's not even going to be a game as it's a forgone conclusion before either side even unpacks their models).

It comes back to the same thing, pitt powerlists against each other and put low level lists against each other. If you're on a 47 game winning streak, you need to ask yourself if you're actually that good of a general or if you're basically just bullying others who're running much, much weaker lists than you. If you're a weak enough person to need that sort of ego stroking, well, then there's not much to it, that's the sort of person you are, but you're not going to be getting a game with me.

Ideally, in a casual setting, everyone should have a ~50% win rate, +/- 10% where the better tactics or crazy dice luck wins the day. The stronger general should be looking to tone his list down and use skills to overcome their handicap and teach the weaker player after the game (as well as build their own skills and use units that are cool but not usually good enough to be considered for competative lists). Sure, if it's a tournament or practice for one, go nuts, bring your cheeseiest cheese from cheesington city on the shores of cheese lake.

Really, at the end of the day, if your fun comes at the expense of someone elses, then yes, you're playing the game wrong.

My regular opponent allows for fun and fluffy lists without having to worry too much about needing to bring a strong build.

Playing him encourages me to go nuts with the funnier units in the game, like a tooled up for melee Lord Marshal.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
No, it makes it the 'general concensus' as well.

And? The fact that a lot of players, even enough players for "general consensus" to be an appropriate description, have decided that competitive play is not welcome in their community does not change the fact that this "don't build powerful lists" rule is not found in the rulebook. It's nothing more than personal opinions about how to have fun the right way, combined with a bizarre need to declare that other people are having fun the wrong way.

Taking that argument and turning it around, the force org chart says that the only compulsory units you have to take are an HQ and two troops - everything else is optional i.e. you dont have to take 9 quad mortars - you could do plenty of damage with three. or one.

Again, you miss the point: people dislike powergamers so much they are willing to buy a pure forgeworld 30k army and books just to get away from it!

That's nice. On the other hand some people buy 30k to play it competitively. And the anti-powergamer crowd doesn't get to claim exclusive ownership of 30k.

Thats cool, but i honestly don't care your gaming group is up to (no offense intended); but you've come to a thread asking how to avoid powergaming to espouse the merits of powergaming.

What you're doing is farting in a lift and inviting everyone else to take a sniff and join in because it's 'funny'.

And what you're doing is declaring that your way of having fun is the only acceptable way, and everyone who wants to play the game in ways you don't enjoy is some kind of TFG. I think it should be obvious why this is rather poor behavior.

The problem with 'your way' of 'having fun' is that it's toxic to the way that most (nearly all) 'have fun'; we are in it for the fluff - that means we don't really care about winning or losing, it's what you're re-enacting that counts more than anything (it's why some people get 'funny' about mk8 marine armour)
When looking at a force, you make some fluff for it, right? you said so yourself in your first post - so why does the primarch of a legion go out on patrol with a scouting party and happen to come accross another primarch on patrol with a scouting party?
And that happens every time you play presumeably, because why would anyone in your meta take anything 'sub-par, right?

It's a shame really, cause you're missing out on a huge chunk of the experience (oh yeah, that was definetly me telling you that you're not having fun your way)

Oh dear, i really am going to pop if you keep this up!!

{rulebook quotes}

If you do own the books, you clearly skipped to the army list and stayed there.

Did you even read what I said? I said that the books aren't just for "historical" missions, not that they don't contain "historical" missions or campaigns. In addition to those missions and campaigns you will find general rules and army lists for playing random "let's play a 2500 point game of 30k" games with no story elements in their rules. Whether you admit it or not FW has published a game system that supports non-"historical" gaming just fine.

 SirDonlad wrote:


So there you go peregrine, the heresy was not intended as anything but a campain system right up till it became staggeringly profitable and was expanded in book 2 along with the note that it is supposed to be a campain book really.

Seems like you should go fire up the time machine and go back and play games before book 2 and subsequent came out. The game has changed.

I totally agree fluff is funner, but that doesn't mean 30k isn't a competitive game. 2 players face off, someone wins, someone loses, ergo it is competitive.

I know, thats why i included that bit from book 2.

The problem i see with 'best in slot' mentality is that theres no way to 'fix' that with a rule you can write down.
I like the sound of a sith-style 'rule of two' because of the starwars reference, but that can only work in an apocalypse sized game - two medusa's are pretty nasty under 2000 points, as are quad mortars (let alone units of quad mortars!)
I'm not convinced that a rule of only ever taking one of anything will fix it either.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Taking that argument and turning it around, the force org chart says that the only compulsory units you have to take are an HQ and two troops - everything else is optional i.e. you dont have to take 9 quad mortars - you could do plenty of damage with three. or one.

I really don't see what your point is. Mandatory vs. optional FOC selections has nothing to do with how fluffy your list should be.

The problem with 'your way' of 'having fun' is that it's toxic to the way that most (nearly all) 'have fun'; we are in it for the fluff - that means we don't really care about winning or losing, it's what you're re-enacting that counts more than anything (it's why some people get 'funny' about mk8 marine armour)

And your way of playing is toxic to the kind of competitive game that other people want to have. Having different preferences is fine, even when those preferences conflict, but please stop assuming that your way of playing the game is somehow morally superior.

When looking at a force, you make some fluff for it, right? you said so yourself in your first post - so why does the primarch of a legion go out on patrol with a scouting party and happen to come accross another primarch on patrol with a scouting party?

Because the game is actually a "zoomed in" view of a larger battle, with the two primarchs and their elite bodyguards meeting in the middle with the intent of killing each other. See, that wasn't so hard to come up with!

Oh brilliant, you don't read what i write and then accuse me of not reading what you write - you didn't bother reading the books it's clear, because in book one has absolutely NOTHING on using the missions outside of a campain - i challenge you to find a quote that says so!

Of course there's no explicit quote, because FW assumes that their audience is smart enough to figure out that they can use the army lists and missions as single games, even if they aren't explicitly given permission to do so. That's why the book gives you a general space marine army list for constructing your own forces, not simply a list of "historical" forces that you are to use in each mission. And you'll notice that most of the campaign missions are the same kind of "pick armies, roll on a random table to see deployment zones and mission objectives" games as found in normal 40k.

Although, if you want an implicit statement of "this is for general gaming", just look at page 183:

The following section details rules for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 set against the background of the dark and terrible wars of the Horus Heresy, along with a full army list for the Space Marine Legions as they were during the dying days of the Great Crusade.

Note the following:

1) The rules are for playing games of Warhammer 40,000, not games of The Horus Heresy Campaign.

2) The space marine army list is from the end of the Great Crusade, not just the Isstvan III battle, implying pretty clearly that it is meant for general 30k-era games.

And then we look at page 277, where we find the following:

... and if you are using the Isstvan III campaign ...

IF you are using it. This rather clearly implies that not using the campaign system is a normal and expected thing to do with the army list, otherwise there would be no need to mention a specific situation that comes up when using the campaign.

In short: everyone but you seems to have figured out that the 30k rules and army lists were meant to be used in general gaming, and that the narrative campaigns were just one way of using those rules, not the only or default way.

In my opinion, lists should be fluffy first and powered-up second.

List building is not where the game should be decided - it should require some input from both sides.

The goal of the game is to have fun, and the objective is to win. By all means seek to accomplish the objective, but also never lose sight of the goal.

If your opponent is telling you they aren't having fun against your list, then there are too things you can do:

1) Tell them to stop whining and suck it up! (The TFG thing)
2) Take their concerns into account for the rest of the game and subsequent games as well.

My opinions is that with how vast the legions are and how many theaters of war they where in, anything is possible. Its totally possible white scars would have to do a seige and forgo their bikes. Ifon warriors could totally end up doing drop pod shock and awe in the middle of the castle. So imo, anything is fluffy. Heack, rites are what let you make fluffy lists.