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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because, as I illustrated earlier, it is more of an imposition on the fluff player to play a competitive army than the competitive player to play a fluffy army, unless his only priority is winning, in which case he should be perfectly happy with beating the snot out of a fluff player.

It really hasn't been illustrated. A fluff player playing against a competitive player has to make changes to their army or lose an unenjoyable game, while a competitive player playing against a fluff player has to make changes or win an unenjoyable game (assuming they don't enjoy a one-sided massacre of an opponent who can't fight back). Both players have to make changes, which means buying and painting new models, playing with stuff that you don't want to use for the sake of balance, etc.

That's true, but the competitive player can do so easier. It's always easier to pull punches than to get stronger, and there are ways to play beyond even points.

From a utilitarian standpoint, a competitive player can make a few changes, or play a different mission type, and still have a challenging game. A purely casual player is never going to provide a challenging tournament game.

The distinction I noted earlier is that the fluff player isn't going to ruin anyone's fun by playing fluff lists, but the competitive player can ruin people's fun by playing competitively.

If you say that the fluff player ruins your fun by not providing a challenge, then I would say you should also play a fluff list, which is both challenging AND aligns with the background.

Heck, if you actually want a challenge, play a worse list than your opponent and it will be very challenging indeed to win!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And a random smattering of incoherent weapons and units isn't fluffy, it is just bad, unless your opponent is playing Blackshields or Outcasts or Shattered Legions, but even so, organizing the weapons into dedicated squads is fluffier (they just might have a limited amount).

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
You don't understand my point despite quoting it?!?
There is nothing saying anything is mandatory beyond that HQ and two troop choices - just because you can take 9 quad mortars doen't mean you should. try using something else other than those 'best in slot' units for a change.

Yes, and nobody here is arguing that the rules require you to take 9 quad mortars. You made a true statement, but it doesn't have any apparent connection to the discussion here.

The Original post was about how to avoid just taking the 'best in slot' and you can't see how my statement about strong units not being compulsory has a connection to the discussion?!
I suggest you find a powergaming forum or make a powergaming thread - your 'input' here is off topic from start to finish.

There is nothing toxic about the way everyone (apart from your gaming group) plays - it's quite healthy actually - evidenced by how poular the HH became without B@C reducing the price of tactical mk4 marines.

Only because you define "nothing toxic" as "my group enjoys it" and don't seem to care if you're excluding other potential players from your group. Ignoring the potential harmful effects of your behavior does not mean that those effects go away.

No, i define 'nothing toxic' as "doesn't force the opponent to adopt the same playstyle" because that dictates how you can 'have fun'; there is only one way to 'have fun' against power players - power playing.
Playing a fluffy list accepts the opposition for whatever it happens to be and stipulates nothing in playstyle - the enjoyment comes from seeing two armies play out a story of the epic struggle of the horus heresy; that may be an ambush where one force is 'hard countered' sometimes.
Having a 'best in slot' list looks weird on the table - this is the horus heresy; there should be masses of marines with elite/heavy/fast units dotted around the line.

I think you haven't considered your own argument against your own attitude - "ignoring the potential harmful effects of your behaviour" sums your attitude up to a tee.

As for the rest, I'm not going to dignify this absurd idea that playing 30k outside of a narrative campaign was some kind of house rule with any further responses. It's obvious nonsense, and trying to explain this to you is not accomplishing anything.

Except that this was exactly the case when the first book got released - i've proved that using quotes from the book earlier in the thread, you were skimming to find something to argue against and didn't see them.
I also showed where in the second book it was officially allowed earlier in the thread which you also skimmed past.

Maybe you really should try not taking the 'best in slot' if you're looking for a challenge? common sense i thought...

 SirDonlad wrote:
Playing a fluffy list accepts the opposition for whatever it happens to be and stipulates nothing in playstyle

Having a 'best in slot' list looks weird on the table - this is the horus heresy; there should be masses of marines with elite/heavy/fast units dotted around the line.

So, playing fluffy simultaneously doesn't impose any requirements and requires you to follow certain principles of list construction. Do you honestly not see the contradiction here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The distinction I noted earlier is that the fluff player isn't going to ruin anyone's fun by playing fluff lists, but the competitive player can ruin people's fun by playing competitively.

And, as I pointed out, this is not true. The fluff player absolutely can ruin things for a competitive opponent. In fact, they can also ruin things for other fluff players, since fluffy lists can also be very powerful and/or hard to deal with for other fluff lists. And they can really ruin things when they cross the line from "here's my fluff list" to "you'd better follow my rules for list construction".

If you say that the fluff player ruins your fun by not providing a challenge, then I would say you should also play a fluff list, which is both challenging AND aligns with the background.

Why is it the competitive player's job to buy, build, and paint additional models to make the game more even? Why should they have to put up with the annoyance of having to take units they don't want, while their opponent can do whatever they feel like? Why doesn't the "fluff" player have a similar obligation to spend time and money? After all, you could say the following:

If you say that the competitive player ruins your fun by providing too much of a challenge, then I would say you should also play a competitive list, which is both challenging AND allows you to explore new parts of the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Is it badly built if it perfectly fills its purpose?

Obviously there's a "from a competitive point of view" implied there. But it doesn't seem to be fulfilling its purpose very well, since its player isn't happy with the outcome of the game.

Well yes, that does not sound either fluffy or competetive, so I doubt it is what anyone means.

You doubt it, but I've seen that kind of attitude over and over again. Someone boasts about their "fluffy" list, and when you look at it it's just a pile of random units and upgrades. But somehow it's assumed to be "fluffy", because lists are either fluffy or competitive and it clearly isn't competitive.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The distinction I noted earlier is that the fluff player isn't going to ruin anyone's fun by playing fluff lists, but the competitive player can ruin people's fun by playing competitively.

And, as I pointed out, this is not true. The fluff player absolutely can ruin things for a competitive opponent. In fact, they can also ruin things for other fluff players, since fluffy lists can also be very powerful and/or hard to deal with for other fluff lists. And they can really ruin things when they cross the line from "here's my fluff list" to "you'd better follow my rules for list construction".

All you pointed out earlier is that a competitive opponent might not like tabling their opponent on Turn 3, which I thought was odd, considering competitive players seem to think winning is fun. The fluff player vs fluff player argument is another talk for a different time, but yes, I won't deny disparities exist. We can start a new thread about the perils of matching up different fluff lists if you'd like. And I'm not arguing you have to follow my rules for list construction - I am just saying that a competitive scene is more poisonous for fluff play than a fluff scene is for competitive play, so the latter should be encouraged.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you say that the fluff player ruins your fun by not providing a challenge, then I would say you should also play a fluff list, which is both challenging AND aligns with the background.

Why is it the competitive player's job to buy, build, and paint additional models to make the game more even? Why should they have to put up with the annoyance of having to take units they don't want, while their opponent can do whatever they feel like? Why doesn't the "fluff" player have a similar obligation to spend time and money? After all, you could say the following:

If you say that the competitive player ruins your fun by providing too much of a challenge, then I would say you should also play a competitive list, which is both challenging AND allows you to explore new parts of the fluff.

Because the fluff player doesn't actually care about challenge or winning. Me personally, I love seeing my fluffy list on the table, and I feel an attachment to the faction I play. The Centurio Ordinatus has limited options, however, on the tabletop, so 'exploring new parts of the fluff' just means leaving my faction behind, which defeats the purpose of choosing an army I like in the first place.

And you're not [forced] to buy extra models if you just approach the game from a fluffy mindset in the first place - but if you dive into a game as background-intensive as 30k and then complain when you roflstomp all the fluff players because it isn't "challenging" enough, then I'm sure you can find something to do where you win with a good challenge.