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.

It seems to me that often there are just two extremes in 40k (Warhammer in general, really): Either it's some variation of being "unplayable", where actively taking the unit for whatever reason will greatly hinder your chances of winning, and "extreme WAAC" which is the type of GT spam/filth lists (assassin spam, conscript spam, Soup lists, etc.). How would you go about hitting a balance between these two, something like a list that you would take to game night that's going to be a challenge to deal with, but not extreme levels you would see in the "win at all costs" mindset that tournament players often have. Is it possible to have a list that's not egregious, still fits the background, makes for an enjoyable game and still has some bite to it? What sort of things can you do to encourage this type of play as opposed to facing unfluffy and, often, unfun lists designed purely to maximize the "best" units in the army?

For me, a good part of it might be to not play "soup" lists that mix and match lots of different factions without having a solid backstory behind why it's working, and even then making sure to not just take the most powerful units (e.g. don't play "AdMech" that's basically Cawl and Kastelans as the only AdMech forces, then Conscript spam and psykers), to not take more than 2-3 of the "strong" units in a single list, to make sure to build an all-comers list that has variety while still keeping an eye to effectiveness (basically I mean building a list that's designed to be tough, but not 100% min-maxed).

What else could work? I feel this style of 40k is the best approach, and want to see it become more popular as it feels a lot better than just seeing the same kind of "spam X and Y" lists that permeate the tournament scene, where the only focus in on optimizing units.

I play narrative games and in the campaigns there are rules to curb the waac lists.

But fighting the polarity you describe is kind of like taking a whiz into a strong wind. Min/max play is the defacto from what I gather in most places.

The only "solution" to this I know of is playing with like-minded people and DESIGN your games ballance and power level in cooperative way and only then test yourself "competetively" in such prepared environment. Not achievable really outside of small, close groups. Definately not for pick-up or tournament styles...

Players will ALWAYS min/max, you can never stop this, all players in every game (not just warhammer but literally every game, look at Diablo for an example) will try to Min/max no matter what.

Is min/maxing bad? no not at all, especially when there is rules like Narrative to play against this type of mentality.

You cant balance a game unless both sides are 100% mirrored and then you have 1 player going 1st getting the advantage (looking at Chess, Go etc.. where the "higher rank player" goes 2nd always).

Its a game, a hobby and its meant to be fun, all the rules always say "talk it over with your opponent" if you dont like someone, tell your opponent.

And if anyways says "tournaments blah blah blah" literally the point of a tournament is to bring the best of the best list.

A good starting point is to remove the ability to mix factions and pile on all the best buffs from a dozen different armies. You get one detachment, preferably the old FOC, from one faction. And no, "Imperium" is not a faction, you have to pick your army and stick to it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Players will ALWAYS min/max, you can never stop this, all players in every game (not just warhammer but literally every game, look at Diablo for an example) will try to Min/max no matter what.

Ah yes how nice of you to make such sweeping statements.

Wonder how we minmax then seeing we are mutually creating forces to fit the narrative of the scenario.

I find min/maxing boring. I know many people that for example when they play games like Dragon Age, The Witcher, RPG's in general, etc... they look for the most OP builds, those that allow you to kill a boss in one single critical hit. I can understand the mathetmatical appeal of that, but personally I just go with what feels good and fun to me. Normally I play in "Normal" mode so I can beat the game without a problem, maybe not so fast but wathever.

In Warhammer I have the same mentality. I go with what feels good to me. Theres some instances where I avoid some options that could be cool but are totally unusable. But normally things aren't like that. For example, Custodes. Theres not a single competitive list that runs custodes. But they are fine in how they are.

I run a mixed list of Inquisitorial/Imperial army where I have Greyfax+Celestine, Tempestus Scions (No plasma spam), SoS and Custodes.
Celestine and the Tempestus Scions are in the top end of the spectrum, Custodes and Greyfax are in the middle, SoS are in the low end, but mixed they do a mid-tire/competitive army that ok, maybe can't win against a Guilliman+Parking LOt+Conscript spam, but at least can put a fight to even lists like those.

 Galas wrote:
I find min/maxing boring. I know many people that for example when they play games like Dragon Age, The Witcher, RPG's in general, etc... they look for the most OP builds, those that allow you to kill a boss in one single critical hit. I can understand the mathetmatical appeal of that, but personally I just go with what feels good and fun to me. Normally I play in "Normal" mode so I can beat the game without a problem, maybe not so fast but wathever.

In Warhammer I have the same mentality. I go with what feels good to me. Theres some instances where I avoid some options that could be cool but are totally unusable. But normally things aren't like that. For example, Custodes. Theres not a single competitive list that runs custodes. But they are fine in how they are.

I run a mixed list of Inquisitorial/Imperial army where I have Greyfax+Celestine, Tempestus Scions (No plasma spam), SoS and Custodes.
Celestine and the Tempestus Scions are in the top end of the spectrum, Custodes and Greyfax are in the middle, SoS are in the low end, but mixed they do a mid-tire/competitive army that ok, maybe can't win against a Guilliman+Parking LOt+Conscript spam, but at least can put a fight to even lists like those.

I find not min/maxing boring..... thats why they have in the rules many game types and to talk to your opponent before playing.

Thats totally ok, I was talking about me personally And yes, this is like going to play football with a guy that plays in a professional team when you just want to kick a ball for some time. If people don't go to a game with the same mentality nobody is gonna have fun.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I find min/maxing boring. I know many people that for example when they play games like Dragon Age, The Witcher, RPG's in general, etc... they look for the most OP builds, those that allow you to kill a boss in one single critical hit. I can understand the mathetmatical appeal of that, but personally I just go with what feels good and fun to me. Normally I play in "Normal" mode so I can beat the game without a problem, maybe not so fast but wathever.

In Warhammer I have the same mentality. I go with what feels good to me. Theres some instances where I avoid some options that could be cool but are totally unusable. But normally things aren't like that. For example, Custodes. Theres not a single competitive list that runs custodes. But they are fine in how they are.

I run a mixed list of Inquisitorial/Imperial army where I have Greyfax+Celestine, Tempestus Scions (No plasma spam), SoS and Custodes.
Celestine and the Tempestus Scions are in the top end of the spectrum, Custodes and Greyfax are in the middle, SoS are in the low end, but mixed they do a mid-tire/competitive army that ok, maybe can't win against a Guilliman+Parking LOt+Conscript spam, but at least can put a fight to even lists like those.

I find not min/maxing boring..... thats why they have in the rules many game types and to talk to your opponent before playing.

They can say this until the cows come home, this is much easier said than done. I haven't ever, in ~20 years, seen anyone "talk to their opponent beforehand" about that sort of thing. Usually you don't even know what your opponent has until they start to unpack their models.

There's a pretty fundamental conflict between wanting players to feel like they're engaging in an interesting optimization process during list construction, where they look for strong combinations of units, etc., and then wanting to impose some outside limitation on the strength of those lists.

It's easy to think that what you ought to do here is just to eyeball people's lists before the game and then make adjustments if one or the other seems to go too far. While this works, insofar as you get better games, I think it makes list-building a lot less fun than it could be. Really, I think what you want to do is have very definite rules for lists and then encourage heavy optimization within those rules. The advantage of doing this in a pretty small group is that you can be very responsive to perceived imbalances.

So, I think you're right that lists look a lot nicer if you cut down drastically on souping, but I think you want very clear rules about this. Maybe start out trying: all units in an army must share two faction keywords (with specific exemptions if this breaks something that it obviously shouldn't).

Depending on your group, you may also want to think about extensive re-pointing. This has a couple of big advantages. The first one is obvious: bad units become better and broken units become unbroken. But it has another, maybe even larger, benefit: net-listing becomes useless. Yeah, maybe your new points are no better than GW's -- maybe they're even worse! -- but this doesn't actually matter very much. Now list construction is a much more creative process, and nobody can just go online and see what the best units are. Maybe someone discovers something abusable, so they do really well for a game or two and then you make an adjustment.

Don't play with knobbers. Bosh. Job done; sweet spot hit.

 Nazrak wrote:
Don't play with knobbers. Bosh. Job done; sweet spot hit.

This. Just... this.

 Nazrak wrote:
Don't play with knobbers. Bosh. Job done; sweet spot hit.

Also easier said than done, if the "knobber" is the only person there for a game.

It's possible. I think it comes down to being the kind of player you want to play against.

You have to accept the idea that occasionally you will run against a player you don't like - for whatever reason, not just the kind of list they run. Try to handle it with some grace and realize it's just a game or two you have to deal with.

I pick armies in 8th edition that are reasonably fluffy and optimized around one aspect of the game - shooting or assault. They could be better, but I really want to try out new units and test out new ideas.

This tends to get across to other players. When I tell them I am taking Possessed, for instance, just to test the rules, other players will sometimes adjust their list at the table to accommodate. (When I tell them I am trying a new Forgeworld unit, it tends to end differently tho - they will ask to bring a few hundred extra points.)

Just try to be good to other people and see where that gets you.

Wayniac wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Don't play with knobbers. Bosh. Job done; sweet spot hit.

Also easier said than done, if the "knobber" is the only person there for a game.

Well I suppose that depends on whether you consider 40k with someone on a different wavelength to you better than no 40k at all. Personally, I'd rather not spend 2-3 hours of my time on an experience I won't enjoy.

Wayniac wrote:
It seems to me that often there are just two extremes in 40k (Warhammer in general, really): Either it's some variation of being "unplayable", where actively taking the unit for whatever reason will greatly hinder your chances of winning, and "extreme WAAC" which is the type of GT spam/filth lists (assassin spam, conscript spam, Soup lists, etc.). How would you go about hitting a balance between these two, something like a list that you would take to game night that's going to be a challenge to deal with, but not extreme levels you would see in the "win at all costs" mindset that tournament players often have. Is it possible to have a list that's not egregious, still fits the background, makes for an enjoyable game and still has some bite to it? What sort of things can you do to encourage this type of play as opposed to facing unfluffy and, often, unfun lists designed purely to maximize the "best" units in the army?

For me, a good part of it might be to not play "soup" lists that mix and match lots of different factions without having a solid backstory behind why it's working, and even then making sure to not just take the most powerful units (e.g. don't play "AdMech" that's basically Cawl and Kastelans as the only AdMech forces, then Conscript spam and psykers), to not take more than 2-3 of the "strong" units in a single list, to make sure to build an all-comers list that has variety while still keeping an eye to effectiveness (basically I mean building a list that's designed to be tough, but not 100% min-maxed).

What else could work? I feel this style of 40k is the best approach, and want to see it become more popular as it feels a lot better than just seeing the same kind of "spam X and Y" lists that permeate the tournament scene, where the only focus in on optimizing units.

Just create a solid TAC list, and understand what balance you need to achieve to have that. Generally when I make a list I want to include a few things:

1) Scorers - units whose primary goal is just providing me objectives and bodies, as well as pulling duties like being chaff against deep strike, blocking charge lanes, and eating bullets. AKA "Designated Die-ers". My IG lists tend to start with a few infantry squads equipped with longer ranged weaponry as well as a few conscripts, with a commissar and commander to improve effectiveness/durability.

2) Killers - units designed to take down a particular type of threat. I always try to ensure that I have a good mix of anti-horde, anti-tank, and anti-elite Killer units ready to go. For my Guard, I've got a Leman Russ streetsweeper tank with Punisher and Heavy Flamers to clear out big blocks of infantry, Lascannon HWTs and melta veterans to sort tanks, and a Manticore to blow away anything that needs high strength hits pumped into it. A good way to avoid Spam is to take not just the most effective option for a particular role, but a variety tuned to the same target. Sure, you could just take nothing but lascannon devastator squads, but a lascannon devastator squad, a predator, and a squad of TH/SS terminators in a land raider would give you a similar style of play with better variety.

3) wildcards - smaller, cheaper units to provide flexibility in my list either taking objectives or targeting niche threats. I usually try to dedicate 1/10th my list's point cost minimum to a few wildcards - things like Scout Sentinels with Heavy Flamers, Ratling Snipers, or a couple Astropaths or Primaris Psykers nabbing the extra transport slots in my chimeras. These can be especially effective if their niche use can be multiplied by the use of a stratagem. A Sydonian Dragoon is a fantastic example - 67 points buys you a weird little melee unit that is annoying to kill, and in the situation where you need some anti-heavy counter charge, it can pop the Conqueror doctrina stratagem and put out an average of 5 rocket launcher hits on a target.

and 4) Just For Fun units - another 1/10th minimum of my army list is dedicated to units, and upgrades, that are PURELY for fun, with the expectation that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, but if they do something, it'll be a pleasant surprise. I don't waste a huge quantity of points on some terrible unit tht's just going to frustrate me, but if there's a couple models that are just hilarious when they do work but rarely actually do, I'll happily pop them in for a bit of amusement. For my Guard, most of the time this is my unit of Rough Riders, and a bunch of powerfist upgrades on various models, because guard powerfists are adorable and I love watching them pimpslap an unsuspecting HQ model or tank.

I have to agree with the overwhelming sentiment that your game will depend on your opponent.

There is a lot of griping about balance on all 40K forums. There always has been, there never won't be. Every single edition of 40K (and admittedly most of their other games) are terribly balanced. They admit this in the earlier editions of the game and openly stated "Hey, don't be a dick." more or less in several White Dwarf issues, etc. Now you can argue (and rightly so) that they could do much better at balancing a game, but since they don't/won't ---- it's up to the players. Find a like-minded person and arrange games on your time. This doesn't mean playing casual - if you're a power-tournament-WAAC player...cool, just find another player like that. Have a dialogue before you game "Do you want to go all-out and bring the cheesiest crap possible?" or "Hey, here's a cool story, are you cool running a list of just..." etc.

To those who say "Well, what if the only person to show up...". Simple, don't play them. No game is better than a bad game. If you struggle to find an opponent in your local area --- paint up two armies. Find a friend or two willing to try it. If you provide the goods, you may find someone willing to play who is more to your liking. You're never forced to play a game with someone. This is a hobby, ideally a way to spend your spare time ---- and ENJOY yourself. Don't force yourself to play some asshat because he's the only clown in your county playing 40K.

I don't use Facebook to follow friends or people but it's been an excellent way to meet new gamers, 40K and beyond. Just start searching around for local gaming clubs, groups, etc. 40K is big enough you normally find groups solely based around it. The key really is to find like-minded people to game with. If they're close friends (and actual friends) they'll be accommodating if you have issues with their army list - or if your armies don't match up, etc. I play a modified version of 2nd with a great lady in another city and we have a riot. She's been gaming since the late 80's, me the early 90's. I play 8th locally but only with a handful of people who are more my style --- but the club has plenty of power gamers --- they play eachother, etc.

Play with like minded people, literally the simplest answer.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Players will ALWAYS min/max, you can never stop this, all players in every game (not just warhammer but literally every game, look at Diablo for an example) will try to Min/max no matter what.

This is false.

I collect models to paint and convert.
Each has a role or not, in which case I find one for it.
This drives army composition, not Min max deck building bs.
This whole WAAC "everyone does it" excuse has worn too thin.
It is a lame excuse for having no depth of character, literally armies with no depth of character.
CCGs may suit such a mindset but cards are not painted and converted and aren't built from scratch.
The sweetspot of the hobby only reveals itself when the hobby becomes the goal.
Not winning the game, exploiting the rules, or min maxing whatever for the lulz.
Gw may change rulesets to sell models but that doesn't drive me to buy them.
Buying models to win only results in unused models the next time that gw marketing decides it is time to sell different models.
I am too old to be led around by an ego fed by such nonsense.
In fact the whole question is something of a zen puzzle,
The more one strives the more distant the goal.
The best slave is never free, rather is only successful in captivity.
Forty k is a hobby for free persons.
It is a leisure time activity.
There is no leisure in chasing the plastic dragon to WAAC.

 jeff white wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Players will ALWAYS min/max, you can never stop this, all players in every game (not just warhammer but literally every game, look at Diablo for an example) will try to Min/max no matter what.

This is false.

I collect models to paint and convert.
Each has a role or not, in which case I find one for it.
This drives army composition, not Min max deck building bs.
This whole WAAC "everyone does it" excuse has worn too thin.
It is a lame excuse for having no depth of character, literally armies with no depth of character.
CCGs may suit such a mindset but cards are not painted and converted and aren't built from scratch.
The sweetspot of the hobby only reveals itself when the hobby becomes the goal.
Not winning the game, exploiting the rules, or min maxing whatever for the lulz.
Gw may change rulesets to sell models but that doesn't drive me to buy them.
Buying models to win only results in unused models the next time that gw marketing decides it is time to sell different models.
I am too old to be led around by an ego fed by such nonsense.
In fact the whole question is something of a zen puzzle,
The more one strives the more distant the goal.
The best slave is never free, rather is only successful in captivity.
Forty k is a hobby for free persons.
It is a leisure time activity.
There is no leisure in chasing the plastic dragon to WAAC.

You know "Players" doesnt equal "All players"

I never said "ALL" I said "players will always", meaning there will always be a number of players that will min/max.

Also no one is saying deal with WAAC, literally most players in here said play with like minded people. And you should talk it over before hand.

the_scotsman wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
It seems to me that often there are just two extremes in 40k (Warhammer in general, really): Either it's some variation of being "unplayable", where actively taking the unit for whatever reason will greatly hinder your chances of winning, and "extreme WAAC" which is the type of GT spam/filth lists (assassin spam, conscript spam, Soup lists, etc.). How would you go about hitting a balance between these two, something like a list that you would take to game night that's going to be a challenge to deal with, but not extreme levels you would see in the "win at all costs" mindset that tournament players often have. Is it possible to have a list that's not egregious, still fits the background, makes for an enjoyable game and still has some bite to it? What sort of things can you do to encourage this type of play as opposed to facing unfluffy and, often, unfun lists designed purely to maximize the "best" units in the army?

For me, a good part of it might be to not play "soup" lists that mix and match lots of different factions without having a solid backstory behind why it's working, and even then making sure to not just take the most powerful units (e.g. don't play "AdMech" that's basically Cawl and Kastelans as the only AdMech forces, then Conscript spam and psykers), to not take more than 2-3 of the "strong" units in a single list, to make sure to build an all-comers list that has variety while still keeping an eye to effectiveness (basically I mean building a list that's designed to be tough, but not 100% min-maxed).

What else could work? I feel this style of 40k is the best approach, and want to see it become more popular as it feels a lot better than just seeing the same kind of "spam X and Y" lists that permeate the tournament scene, where the only focus in on optimizing units.

Just create a solid TAC list, and understand what balance you need to achieve to have that. Generally when I make a list I want to include a few things:

1) Scorers - units whose primary goal is just providing me objectives and bodies, as well as pulling duties like being chaff against deep strike, blocking charge lanes, and eating bullets. AKA "Designated Die-ers". My IG lists tend to start with a few infantry squads equipped with longer ranged weaponry as well as a few conscripts, with a commissar and commander to improve effectiveness/durability.

2) Killers - units designed to take down a particular type of threat. I always try to ensure that I have a good mix of anti-horde, anti-tank, and anti-elite Killer units ready to go. For my Guard, I've got a Leman Russ streetsweeper tank with Punisher and Heavy Flamers to clear out big blocks of infantry, Lascannon HWTs and melta veterans to sort tanks, and a Manticore to blow away anything that needs high strength hits pumped into it. A good way to avoid Spam is to take not just the most effective option for a particular role, but a variety tuned to the same target. Sure, you could just take nothing but lascannon devastator squads, but a lascannon devastator squad, a predator, and a squad of TH/SS terminators in a land raider would give you a similar style of play with better variety.

3) wildcards - smaller, cheaper units to provide flexibility in my list either taking objectives or targeting niche threats. I usually try to dedicate 1/10th my list's point cost minimum to a few wildcards - things like Scout Sentinels with Heavy Flamers, Ratling Snipers, or a couple Astropaths or Primaris Psykers nabbing the extra transport slots in my chimeras. These can be especially effective if their niche use can be multiplied by the use of a stratagem. A Sydonian Dragoon is a fantastic example - 67 points buys you a weird little melee unit that is annoying to kill, and in the situation where you need some anti-heavy counter charge, it can pop the Conqueror doctrina stratagem and put out an average of 5 rocket launcher hits on a target.

and 4) Just For Fun units - another 1/10th minimum of my army list is dedicated to units, and upgrades, that are PURELY for fun, with the expectation that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, but if they do something, it'll be a pleasant surprise. I don't waste a huge quantity of points on some terrible unit tht's just going to frustrate me, but if there's a couple models that are just hilarious when they do work but rarely actually do, I'll happily pop them in for a bit of amusement. For my Guard, most of the time this is my unit of Rough Riders, and a bunch of powerfist upgrades on various models, because guard powerfists are adorable and I love watching them pimpslap an unsuspecting HQ model or tank.

This is excellent advice.

I also prefer to make take all comers-lists. However, just because you are making one, doesn't mean you can't gear it towards lethal efficiency.

Also, looking for balance and trying to tie it all togeter with fluff are interesting challenges when you are making a list.

 Peregrine wrote:
And no, "Imperium" is not a faction, you have to pick your army and stick to it.

Sorry, I disagree. How else would you field, say, Custodes, Assassins or Inquisitors in your army? Custodes lack HQs and Inquisitors lack troopers. And even if you got one or two mandatory HQs outside of Assassins, an entire army of Assassins would be just silly. Besides, it's very common to see different imperial agencies working together when you read fluff. After all, they all have the aquila as their symbol.

I do think that maybe tactics/traits should have required the entire army to have the keyword, not just detachments. That might cut down on the Imperial Soup a bit, if adding any detachments with a different keyword meant you lost your specific traits; it would be more of a tradeoff to do it instead of just "best of both worlds"

 Peregrine wrote:
A good starting point is to remove the ability to mix factions and pile on all the best buffs from a dozen different armies. You get one detachment, preferably the old FOC, from one faction. And no, "Imperium" is not a faction, you have to pick your army and stick to it.

Okay, I guess all inquisition players can go zog off.

What it boils down to in my opinion is that people have an expectation when they pick a faction, and then when the gameplay doesn't match, they get upset.

So you can have people who complain even though their army has a very good footprint in the competitive meta, because their own expectations of the army differ. Tau is the perfect example of this. Recent Grey Knights lists, featuring over 50% astra militarum, are also a good example. Technically you're playing Tau and GK and you will be competitive. But those lists aren't why people picked up the army in the first place.

Just like Imperial Guard players are upset that Leman Russes aren't the backbone of their army. Guard is literally the best army in 40k 8th edition in virtually every single way, but people are still upset because the lists to accomplish that are built on cheese and violate the archetype of the tank based army that sells people on guard in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
A good starting point is to remove the ability to mix factions and pile on all the best buffs from a dozen different armies. You get one detachment, preferably the old FOC, from one faction. And no, "Imperium" is not a faction, you have to pick your army and stick to it.

Unless you have a good story for why they're mixed, according to the OP.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
(basically I mean building a list that's designed to be tough, but not 100% min-maxed).

How is that supposed to work in practice? It's okay to take an optimized list but not TOO optimized. How do you put an objective measure against that?

It's easy when you're playing with friends, you both know how strong to aim for. For Americans that insist on mostly playing with strangers this just doesn't work in practice.

I find the "sweet spot" is to play at a relatively competitive level where are players are bringing near the best the can with intent to win, but with low/no stakes because it makes the individual players less cranky and more tolerable.

If you lost this one, go back to the drawing board, analyse what deficiencies caused you to lose and what you could have done better, predict what your opponent will bring next time around, and re-build a better list for next time. If you won this one, go back to the drawing board, analyse why you won and what you did right and what you did poorly, predict what your opposition will bring next time around, and strengthen your list.


I prefer not to engage in mutual back-patting. The way I see it, the people who create a bunch of additional arbitrary conditions, or complain about their opponent's army being no fun to play because it's good, or who bring intentionally terrible lists "because it's fluffy" [I sincerely doubt the SM codex would have more entries than half the other factions in the game combined if they only ever used Rhinos full of Tac Marines in the fluff] do so that they can create an artificial moral high ground with which to discredit their opponent in their own mind, and tend to be the first people to switch viewpoints and say "you're bad, and should feel bad" when they win.

I used to think that way. "X unit/formation is OP", "Monsters are better than vehicles", "My army is underpowered", etc. Then one of my friends said "well, I'm just using what I have at my disposal; I'm not even fielding a Riptide wing," and I sat down and thought about it, and said to myself "well, I'm going to beat his list." I built a list that could and would win, and did win. It was a lot more fun, a lot more fun than even playing with two matched but sub-par lists. Later, I met a guy who found every single unit in my army to be OP, and every single unit in every single opposing army that beat him to be OP, and always ran a list consisting of Blood Claws in Land Raiders, and I realized to myself "I was like that at one time. Damn, I must have been insufferable; how did I get away with that?"

I feel like I've hit a good spot:

1) I love the army theme I'm playing
2) It is an easy theme within which to optimize.

I think those two are the key things. Picking a theme is important, but one must remember that a theme is not the same thing as exclusivity.

For example, I've picked Imperial Guard Super Heavy Tank Regiment as a theme. However, I've set myself a limit: the regiment is divided into companies, and no more than one company will show up to a given battle (unless it's over 3000 points of course because that's apoc).

This means that I have to get fun and creative with army builds and wargear, and gives me some wiggle-room to optimize. I can do this because it's less specific than "in my regiment all my guardsmen have lasguns exclusively because we're a conscript regiment" or whatever but it's still specific enough to keep my interest and give me a challenge to play around. Games Workshop in the 3.5 edition Guard codex had Regiments with "preferred special weapon" and "preferred heavy weapon." Some people took those as Gospel, and wouldn't field anything heavier than an autocannon as a Cadian heavy weapon, while others understood it exactly as it was intended: A 'theme', not a 'restriction'. So you'd see six or eight lascannons, but twelve or fifteen autocannons.

If you use my method, writing some fluff can help keep you sane; if you ever want to see any of mine just ask, but essentially I try to name all of my tanks and tank commanders, etc. so that I have a "living record" of who lives and who dies. I've even spent a CP re-roll on an exploding superheavy to make it not explode, so the regiment could "salvage" it later and I didn't have to paint over and redo the name decal, unit markings, etc (to indicate it as a "new" tank).

Lastly, you have to be not cranky and willing to lose games. Part of playing a superheavy tank company is that you've gotta get everything executed fairly flawlessly or you get wrecked; conversely, your opponent has to avoid being psychologically traumatized by seeing the three monstrosities across the table. I think the psychological effect of seeing a trio of Baneblades has won me more games than their actual capabilities have.

Anyways, be ready to lose, but optimize as best you can while preserving a theme and keeping the fluff rolling.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Players will ALWAYS min/max, you can never stop this, all players in every game (not just warhammer but literally every game, look at Diablo for an example) will try to Min/max no matter what.

This is false.

I collect models to paint and convert.
Each has a role or not, in which case I find one for it.
This drives army composition, not Min max deck building bs.
This whole WAAC "everyone does it" excuse has worn too thin.
It is a lame excuse for having no depth of character, literally armies with no depth of character.
CCGs may suit such a mindset but cards are not painted and converted and aren't built from scratch.
The sweetspot of the hobby only reveals itself when the hobby becomes the goal.
Not winning the game, exploiting the rules, or min maxing whatever for the lulz.
Gw may change rulesets to sell models but that doesn't drive me to buy them.
Buying models to win only results in unused models the next time that gw marketing decides it is time to sell different models.
I am too old to be led around by an ego fed by such nonsense.
In fact the whole question is something of a zen puzzle,
The more one strives the more distant the goal.
The best slave is never free, rather is only successful in captivity.
Forty k is a hobby for free persons.
It is a leisure time activity.
There is no leisure in chasing the plastic dragon to WAAC.

You know "Players" doesnt equal "All players"

I never said "ALL" I said "players will always", meaning there will always be a number of players that will min/max.

Also no one is saying deal with WAAC, literally most players in here said play with like minded people. And you should talk it over before hand.

Hate to say it...but...you literally did say "All players in every game will try to min/max no matter what".

 Jaxler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
A good starting point is to remove the ability to mix factions and pile on all the best buffs from a dozen different armies. You get one detachment, preferably the old FOC, from one faction. And no, "Imperium" is not a faction, you have to pick your army and stick to it.

Okay, I guess all inquisition players can go zog off.

Yep. If you can't build an entire inquisition detachment, especially given the 8th edition detachments, then you aren't an "inqusition player". You're a player of some other faction who throws in some inquisition models.