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.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

So if the guy's fluff for his cadian regiment is that they're experts in mech infantry tactics so he wants armageddon rules to represent that you're going to point at the book and tell him he's wrong?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

How is it even fluffy that every regiment with all of their various specializations should have the exact same skills just because they're from the same planet?


You also both seem to believe that there is zero middle ground between picking units at random and being a min-maxing tournament gamer. You're missing out on the best bit of 40K which is somewhere between those two extremes.

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

 Carl wrote:

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

And now you're moving the goalposts.

You're talking about someone bringing a highly optimized list. Previously you said that painting an official color scheme whilst using some other regiment's rules = power gaming.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soldiers like a spoiled child!"

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

Are you seriously trying to compare the enormous diversity of guard regiments from a single planet to a chapter of marines that's barely the size of single regiment?

Have fun telling people that their fluff is wrong and bad and that it makes them a power gamer. I'm sure they'll form an equally strong opinion of you.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

And now you're moving the goalposts.

You're talking about someone bringing a highly optimized list. Previously you said that painting an official color scheme whilst using some other regiment's rules = power gaming.

I said exactly what I have been. That if your list is completely uniform themed, with no effort at distinguishing them and are running each regiment as min-maxed, it's power gaming. Are you ok? You seem way too emotionally invested. You admitted you play to win, that's fine. In fact, I encourage you to do it within your circle of like minded people, just don't be offended if you catch me, I take one look at what you are doing and politely decline the match.

It's hopeless to argue if you truly believe that anyone who might want to try out different regiment traits game to game are all power gaming. That's a blanket statement plain and simple, almost as if in this universe no one who has an IG army simply wants to try a slight incremental change to the way their army plays week to week. They just want to powergame.

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

And now you're moving the goalposts.

You're talking about someone bringing a highly optimized list. Previously you said that painting an official color scheme whilst using some other regiment's rules = power gaming.

I said exactly what I have been. That if your list is completely uniform themed, with no effort at distinguishing them and are running each regiment as min-maxed, it's power gaming. Are you ok? You seem way too emotionally invested. You admitted you play to win, that's fine. In fact, I encourage you to do it within your circle of like minded people, just don't be offended if you catch me, I take one look at what you are doing and politely decline the match.

More goal post moving - go back and look at your posts in this thread. You said more than once - using different regiment rules = power gaming. Nothing about having an optimized army (and surely that is what you'd object to, it's not like if he's using the correct regimental rules for his highly optimized army then you're suddenly okay with it, is it?)

Asmodios wrote:
Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

The black templars are a specific self contained army. Every black templars is from the same army. Cadia is a world, as is Catachan or Valhalla, or whatever, not a single army. The regiment tactics represent the most iconic regiments of those worlds, not every regiment ever raised on it.

For example, someone wants to make a Valhallan 597th regiment, the one from the commissar Cain books. An army that consists mainly of mechanized veterans, with no conscript squads etc. In short, an army that has little in common with the "typical" regiment of their home world, that far more resembles steel legion in tactics. It would be entirely reasonable to use steel legion to represent that regiment.

You aren't avoiding power gaming at all, you are actively telling someone their vision for their army is wrong.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

Are you seriously trying to compare the enormous diversity of guard regiments from a single planet to a chapter of marines that's barely the size of single regiment?

Have fun telling people that their fluff is wrong and bad and that it makes them a power gamer. I'm sure they'll form an equally strong opinion of you.

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

Again, just incredibly simple minded.

A marine chapter is 1000 marines, often fighting and training together and with marines being part of that chapter for hundreds or thousands of years to ensure continuity of skills and traditions.

Each guard regiment is largely self contained, may never fight with another guard regiment from the same homeworld and typically don't return home to pass on the skills they've learned making each regiment quite idiosyncratic over time regardless of their original training. Furthermore, a world can produce hundreds or thousands of regiments and those regiments can be highly specialised in different ways. Each regiment is more akin to a chapter than a homeworld is to one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Who said anything about changing anything? They've got from having no regimental doctrines available to now getting to choose one so they pick the one that fit's their regiment's fluff best.

SilverAlien wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

The black templars are a specific self contained army. Every black templars is from the same army. Cadia is a world, as is Catachan or Valhalla, or whatever, not a single army. The regiment tactics represent the most iconic regiments of those worlds, not every regiment ever raised on it.

For example, someone wants to make a Valhallan 597th regiment, the one from the commissar Cain books. An army that consists mainly of mechanized veterans, with no conscript squads etc. In short, an army that has little in common with the "typical" regiment of their home world, that far more resembles steel legion in tactics. It would be entirely reasonable to use steel legion to represent that regiment.

You aren't avoiding power gaming at all, you are actively telling someone their vision for their army is wrong.

Sorry but the codex states how the people from those worlds gain advantages from being trained on that world. No different from any chapter the only difference it you would never except a SM player doing the same thing you're saying is fine here

The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

Again, just incredibly simple minded.

A marine chapter is 1000 marines, often fighting and training together and with marines being part of that chapter for hundreds or thousands of years to ensure continuity of skills and traditions.

Each guard regiment is largely self contained and may never fight with another guard regiment from the same homeworld. A world can produce hundreds or thousands of regiments and those regiments can be highly specialised in different ways. Each regiment is more akin to a chapter than a homeworld is to one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Who said anything about changing anything? They've got from having no regimental doctrines available to now getting to choose one so they pick the one that fit's their regiment's fluff best.

Yeah yu can pick the one that "fits best" if you have a unique army. If you have a Cadia painted army the book tells you exactly how they fight.

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

Again, just incredibly simple minded.

A marine chapter is 1000 marines, often fighting and training together and with marines being part of that chapter for hundreds or thousands of years to ensure continuity of skills and traditions.

Each guard regiment is largely self contained and may never fight with another guard regiment from the same homeworld. A world can produce hundreds or thousands of regiments and those regiments can be highly specialised in different ways. Each regiment is more akin to a chapter than a homeworld is to one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Who said anything about changing anything? They've got from having no regimental doctrines available to now getting to choose one so they pick the one that fit's their regiment's fluff best.

Yeah yu can pick the one that "fits best" if you have a unique army. If you have a Cadia painted army the book tells you exactly how they fight.

Like I said, have fun telling people that their fluff is wrong based on your trite and shallow views of the fluff. They probably won't judge you quite as harshly as you're judging them.

From what I see, people seem to see four distinct type of player mentalities:

The Dedicated Fluff Person: This person chose the army specifically because they like it, all aspects of it. Therefore even if the rules suck they will stick by it to the bitter end, because the lore of their army (including how they're represented on the tabletop) is the most important.

The Moderate Person: This person chose an army because they liked the lore and look, but also would like to play the game with a decent chance to win. To them, the fluff is disconnected from the crunch and they should be free to build an army based solely on the rules without having to worry about what it looks like.

The Count-as Person; This person likes the army lore but feels the tabletop game rules given to them does not represent them clearly. Therefore they use different rules to represent their army to get a better feel. In many ways this is the opposite of the Moderate, as they feel the fluff should be so attached to the crunch that they feel the current rules do not give a good representation of it. Note that the difference between this guy and a WAAC player is that this guy will field a mechanically inferior army if said mechanic suits the lore better, however this scenario is rare because usually you chose a superior ruleset because they give you a benefit found in lore that didn't exist in the main rules.

The Game Person: This person is in the hobby purely for the game. The models are mere game pieces, tokens, to represent a set of stats on the board. They have no connection to the rules other than the guidelines set by the parameters of the game.

Note that no one exists solely in a single set of this, it's more like a four-way spectrum. But people do lean heavily towards one of these as it looks like. All of these are valid ways of playing this game, so none of them are inherently "bad", they will only seem so depending on which one you gravitate towards.

The problem with this issue is that it causes opposing ones to disagree on how to handle it, and each is a valid complaint. Which is why I still say it would have been a lot better if these were simply listed as "generic" traits and not tied to any single world. This hobby is more than just the game, it's the lore and the models too, so people's feelings towards which rule should represent them on the tabletop are no less valid than those who think the rules are simply abstractions disconnected from the fluff (which is also valid).

Asmodios wrote:
Yeah yu can pick the one that "fits best" if you have a unique army. If you have a Cadia painted army the book tells you exactly how they fight.

Which is utterly idiotic considering most of these armies will be created long before they had official rules indicating how they fought. There was no way for people to know this ahead of time.

Also, I'm not sure the rules actually do that, considering it makes mention of ork hunters, who are from Armageddon a world with official tactics, as a custom regiment.

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

I have give you an example of a Regiment from Armageddon that has nothing to do with how Armageddon Steel Legion fights. Why have you ignored that?

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
From what I see, people seem to see four distinct type of player mentalities:

The Dedicated Fluff Person: This person chose the army specifically because they like it, all aspects of it. Therefore even if the rules suck they will stick by it to the bitter end, because the lore of their army (including how they're represented on the tabletop) is the most important.

The Moderate Person: This person chose an army because they liked the lore and look, but also would like to play the game with a decent chance to win. To them, the fluff is disconnected from the crunch and they should be free to build an army based solely on the rules without having to worry about what it looks like.

The Count-as Person; This person likes the army lore but feels the tabletop game rules given to them does not represent them clearly. Therefore they use different rules to represent their army to get a better feel. In many ways this is the opposite of the Moderate, as they feel the fluff should be so attached to the crunch that they feel the current rules do not give a good representation of it. Note that the difference between this guy and a WAAC player is that this guy will field a mechanically inferior army if said mechanic suits the lore better, however this scenario is rare because usually you chose a superior ruleset because they give you a benefit found in lore that didn't exist in the main rules.

The Game Person: This person is in the hobby purely for the game. The models are mere game pieces, tokens, to represent a set of stats on the board. They have no connection to the rules other than the guidelines set by the parameters of the game.

Note that no one exists solely in a single set of this, it's more like a four-way spectrum. But people do lean heavily towards one of these as it looks like. All of these are valid ways of playing this game, so none of them are inherently "bad", they will only seem so depending on which one you gravitate towards.

The problem with this issue is that it causes opposing ones to disagree on how to handle it, and each is a valid complaint. Which is why I still say it would have been a lot better if these were simply listed as "generic" traits and not tied to any single world. This hobby is more than just the game, it's the lore and the models too, so people's feelings towards which rule should represent them on the tabletop are no less valid than those who think the rules are simply abstractions disconnected from the fluff (which is also valid).

Well put. I'm not sure why people are so offended, the community already pretty much self segregated based on what they get out of the game enjoyment wise. I suppose if you are the player in the store no one wants to play, that may be an issue, but then it's time for some self reflection.

 Galas wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

I have give you an example of a Regiment from Armageddon that has nothing to do with how Armageddon Steel Legion fights. Why have you ignored that?

Simple that don't have painted them steel legion with all the markings. If you have they are steel legion and the codex says how they fight. No different than saying "this Black Templar crusade was fighting over on this world so they are separate now and fight like salamanders" it would be equally lame and i wouldnt want to play the person who did it

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

Yet if someone wanted to run a more toned down regiment, you wouldn't have a problem? Because according to your statements before thats still considering power gaming.

 Carl wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
From what I see, people seem to see four distinct type of player mentalities:

The Dedicated Fluff Person: This person chose the army specifically because they like it, all aspects of it. Therefore even if the rules suck they will stick by it to the bitter end, because the lore of their army (including how they're represented on the tabletop) is the most important.

The Moderate Person: This person chose an army because they liked the lore and look, but also would like to play the game with a decent chance to win. To them, the fluff is disconnected from the crunch and they should be free to build an army based solely on the rules without having to worry about what it looks like.

The Count-as Person; This person likes the army lore but feels the tabletop game rules given to them does not represent them clearly. Therefore they use different rules to represent their army to get a better feel. In many ways this is the opposite of the Moderate, as they feel the fluff should be so attached to the crunch that they feel the current rules do not give a good representation of it. Note that the difference between this guy and a WAAC player is that this guy will field a mechanically inferior army if said mechanic suits the lore better, however this scenario is rare because usually you chose a superior ruleset because they give you a benefit found in lore that didn't exist in the main rules.

The Game Person: This person is in the hobby purely for the game. The models are mere game pieces, tokens, to represent a set of stats on the board. They have no connection to the rules other than the guidelines set by the parameters of the game.

Note that no one exists solely in a single set of this, it's more like a four-way spectrum. But people do lean heavily towards one of these as it looks like. All of these are valid ways of playing this game, so none of them are inherently "bad", they will only seem so depending on which one you gravitate towards.

The problem with this issue is that it causes opposing ones to disagree on how to handle it, and each is a valid complaint. Which is why I still say it would have been a lot better if these were simply listed as "generic" traits and not tied to any single world. This hobby is more than just the game, it's the lore and the models too, so people's feelings towards which rule should represent them on the tabletop are no less valid than those who think the rules are simply abstractions disconnected from the fluff (which is also valid).

Well put. I'm not sure why people are so offended, the community already pretty much self segregated based on what they get out of the game enjoyment wise. I suppose if you are the player in the store no one wants to play, that may be an issue, but then it's time for some self reflection.

Because you decided to get all judgemental without bothering to differentiate between the game person and count-as person?

Carl, nobody is offended, but your "Is okay to be a power gamer. It just means you are an adult that needs to win with in a game of rolling dice and little toys for self-confirmation. " is very passive-aggresive. So please, step down from your high horse.

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

I'm going to explain this real slow. They aren't picking them because they have better rules. They have rules which better fit their fluff. The mindset you keep ascribing to them is literally not the case in a lot of situations. Are you claiming such people don't exist or what?

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

I think that you are very concerned about winning as well, or you wouldn't worry about it so much.

I've been playing Guard since 1996. The importance of Regiments has waxed and waned. The 2003 Codex used Doctrines and gave examples of which Doctrines were featured by a number of Regiments, but you still had tons of customization available. The camouflage examples all showed variation as well.

I'm OK with you calling me a power gamer because I adjust my list to find an advantage. We are not playing chess - we have choices. My world will keep on turning. I do have a question about how you build your lists - do you ever think about "How will this unit perform? Should I pick another?" Just wondering.

Most of my Guard are Cadians (metal and plastic) along with some Catachans, Last Chancers and Mordians, and I have applied a consistent (if drab and boring) paint scheme regardless of the models through the years. I suppose my leanings are Cadian, but I have happily applied different Veteran Skills in 2nd Ed and various doctrines in 4th Ed for variety. A force as big as the Cadians is going to have a wide range of styles and skills. I should say, though, that I only play my Dark Angels as Dark Angels. Their look and fluff is so distinct that I would not feel right playing them as something else. Its my army, though, and I play it how I want within the rules. I don't impose my quirks on others. You want to paint your Space Marines as Ultramarines but play them sometimes as Ravenguard? Go for it!

Cheers,

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

Yet if someone wanted to run a more toned down regiment, you wouldn't have a problem? Because according to your statements before thats still considering power gaming.

Id still have a problem. Its funny though all of a sudden ever Cadia players guys were trained in the jungle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverAlien wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

I'm going to explain this real slow. They aren't picking them because they have better rules. They have rules which better fit their fluff. The mindset you keep ascribing to them is literally not the case in a lot of situations. Are you claiming such people don't exist or what?

Its not their fluff. If you have a Cadia army your fluff is represented by the Cadia rule...... its very simple