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.

When I started 8th after a long absence I got my butt handed to me. But after the games I'd talk to the regulars and not only fixed up my list but figured out a lot of in game tactics.

I feel people are confusing just jerks with WAAC or CAAC players. Losing to a better list doesn't have to be a terrible experience if you are learning from it. Winning isn't a good experience if you are playing with a jerk (although I really do like beating the tar out of the local neckbeard but then I usually feel bad because I have a lot of good things going for me in life in general and I kinda feel his only "powerful" moments are pwning n00bs).

I mean there are limits to what people should have to accommodate. If you bring an all assault centurion list to game night then get mad when you get ROFL stomped and then just cry about everyone at your local is a WAAC jerk take a look in the mirror. On the other hand if you get your jollies from beating 8 year olds at your shop with their dark imperium list with your reaper+shining spear spam list it's not a WAAC vs CAAC issue at that point.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

It appears you would be a delicious seal, ripe for clubbing, and then blamed/accused that it's your fault the game was bad.

I suppose that when I PLAY a game i am there to PLAY, and have fun, win or lose. I will try to win, try to make good moves etc, build unique/novel/amusing/maybe even trolly lists in addition to competitive ones to keep enjoying it, and hopefully my opponent does too. Generally when its close, we both have a very good time.

Thank you. And that is exactly how a game is supposed to be played.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

Literally the opposite applies. Why does the weaker list get preferential treatment in this scenario?

 BlackLobster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

The irony here is that balancing around the competitive scene lessens the delta between toned lists and "casual" lists. If the game was more balanced, there would be less effort here, because things would be generally more useful but based on scenarios rather than abusing the most undercosted thing.

In general you see competitive players talking about what needs to be toned down more than what needs to be toned up, because that's an easier discussion. So when competitive players call for a nerf to a specific unit, that actually benefits Johnny Casualgamer, because he's more likely to have a "fun game" as there's less to abuse.

It's odd to me the idea that competition is what ruins competition.

If one disdains competition, then why does it matter if one loses when playing a game? If the opponent is reasonably polite, how can it ever be a drawback to lose, even if badly?

The idea that competition and fun are separate things is false and ridiculous. If one can't have fun the same way as one's opponent, one should seek other opponents, not shame those without the same mindset.

 amanita wrote:
It's odd to me the idea that competition is what ruins competition.

If one disdains competition, then why does it matter if one loses when playing a game? If the opponent is reasonably polite, how can it ever be a drawback to lose, even if badly?

The idea that competition and fun are separate things is false and ridiculous. If one can't have fun the same way as one's opponent, one should seek other opponents, not shame those without the same mindset.

A good post, it's a social game as much as anything. You can "curb stomp" the hell out of me if I get a pleasant social interaction over a hobby that we both enjoy.


Anyways shouldn't someone have posted that old White Dwarf pic with the Dwarf Slayer and the dragon by now? It basically the /endthread for these discussions but I cannot find it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

Literally the opposite applies. Why does the weaker list get preferential treatment in this scenario?

For the very reason that I mentioned. If you have that sort of player why wouldn't you tone down your game?

But as I said if you know what sort of player you both are you probably should just not play each other. I'm not saying that every casual player is unable to play up but some people don't have that ability in them.

 BlackLobster wrote:
What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

So, what you're saying is that the player with the competitive list should spend time and money to provide alternate models, learn your codex and list well enough to tone down their list appropriately, and figure out the necessary changes, all so that you don't have to spend the same time and money. Why is only one player allowed to say "it's too much work" here?

Why is it so hard to just ask your opponent if you want to play casually or competitive or some where else in the spectrum

i highly doubt anyone would bite your head off for wanting to play one way or another.

This poll implies that 40k is competitive.

And you're implying it's not competitive. If it isn't competitive how do you see it?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
And you're implying it's not competitive. If it isn't competitive how do you see it?

Noncompetitive.

Also, a game where you win by rule lawyering "gotchas" instead of havimg a strategy.

 Desubot wrote:
Why is it so hard to just ask your opponent if you want to play casually or competitive or some where else in the spectrum

i highly doubt anyone would bite your head off for wanting to play one way or another.

Because it can often be very hard to work out what a "competitive" and "casual" list really is; at least if you are not dealing with the polar extremes of either type of list.

What is casual? Taking "bad" units or a "poor list" or only using a very "Fluffy" list (that might or might not be any good). Is it pausing half way to go to the pizza store; is it sort of slapdown whatever no points or army limits lets just do something nuts etc....

In general the issue si the skill difference between the two players. If hte skill difference is large then the less experienced/knowledgeable player is typically going to build and play a poorer list and army than the more skilled; even if the more skilled tries to dumb things down, generally, they are going to find it hard not to play at their best, or at least to play well.

Now granted once two people have played a few games they can sort of measure each other up and build and play a little more casually within a persons weaknesses or suchlike to try and give each player a fun game. So it can be possible, but it can also be really rather hard.

In general the best view is to either find otherp eople of a similar skill level to play or the more experienced tries to teach the less experienced so that the less experienced improve their game

These topics always amuse me. We have a bunch of people who apparently don’t like competitive players, their lists, mindset, or hygiene but despite loudly and repeatedly stating their desire to simply have fun care deeply about winning and losing. Maybe it’s becuase... you are playing an inherently competitive war game 99% of the time in the context of one-off competitive matches using GWs poor balancing mechanics -hoping your opponent happens to magically and non-verbally pick up on how powerful your list is, how experienced you are, and your willingness to play something that’s obviously a competitive game of miniature soldiers.

What you’re looking for are things liked campaigns, themed and restricted army lists, alternate scenarios, tiered leagues, etc...

That’s awesome, in fact it’s my preferred way of playing these days; except it’s madness to keep showing up for pick up games and single matches expecting everyone to conform to some sort of quasi-competitive and nebulous idea you have concerning the correct way to build and play 40k.

In its raw form, it’s clearly a competitive game between 2 people. It’s not a great competitive game, in fact it’s rather poor at it, but that’s what it is. If you have a problem with that you need to be pro active about setting up alternate ways to play, like the aforementioned list. Yeah, it’s a lot of work, which is why most people just play matched(read- competitive)games using the official rules.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
People should read the responses in this reddit thread from a subreddit dedicated to competitve Warhammer:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/7vyisz/a_different_take_on_the_lvo_controversy/

Source Article Link:
https://40kgamejournal.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-tony-g-heresy.html

The hard to read English aside, the article mostly just sticks its nose up in the air about the idea of 'friendly play' and berets non-competitive players. It doesn't really offer any new insights that haven't been presented in the thread before. Is there a need for clean play? Yes. Can you take that too far? Yes. There was nothing clean or entertaining about watching people out-rules lawyer each other. Rules-lawyering is indeed antithetical to the idea of clean play, which is much more on the side of RAI and not RAW.

My point was the comments from the redditors who oppose that article to a very high degree.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

So, what you're saying is that the player with the competitive list should spend time and money to provide alternate models, learn your codex and list well enough to tone down their list appropriately, and figure out the necessary changes, all so that you don't have to spend the same time and money. Why is only one player allowed to say "it's too much work" here?

Thanks for saying this before I could.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

So, what you're saying is that the player with the competitive list should spend time and money to provide alternate models, learn your codex and list well enough to tone down their list appropriately, and figure out the necessary changes, all so that you don't have to spend the same time and money. Why is only one player allowed to say "it's too much work" here?

Glad to see black and white are the only two colors here. If it isn't extreme it doesn't exist! WOO!

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

So, what you're saying is that the player with the competitive list should spend time and money to provide alternate models, learn your codex and list well enough to tone down their list appropriately, and figure out the necessary changes, all so that you don't have to spend the same time and money. Why is only one player allowed to say "it's too much work" here?

Glad to see black and white are the only two colors here. If it isn't extreme it doesn't exist! WOO!

Of course it doesn't. This is the internet, ruled by machines. Only 1's and 0's are viable options.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

So, what you're saying is that the player with the competitive list should spend time and money to provide alternate models, learn your codex and list well enough to tone down their list appropriately, and figure out the necessary changes, all so that you don't have to spend the same time and money. Why is only one player allowed to say "it's too much work" here?

In my experience the competetive player has a larger collection, because they have been evolving their lists as editions/metas change. And any competetive player worth their salt will already know enough about opposing lists/units etc. to adjust accordingly.


Or imagine it like this. You're the older one of two brothers, you're 15 and he's 9. You're going to wrestle, and you demand that he step up and match you. He doesn't because he can't, he's practically half your size, and you quickly smash him over and over every time. You do this for 3 hours or so. Maybe he has fun for the first 30 min, but for the rest he's crying because you just keep flooring him.

You're not reighteous, you're an ******e.

As the competetive player you have the upper hand. Man up and game like a gentleman. Cut your list up if you have to and play lower points or whatever, bringing less synergy, or change the scenario so they have a chance and you have a challenge. You'll undoubtedly know the game better so the responsibility is on you.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

So, what you're saying is that the player with the competitive list should spend time and money to provide alternate models, learn your codex and list well enough to tone down their list appropriately, and figure out the necessary changes, all so that you don't have to spend the same time and money. Why is only one player allowed to say "it's too much work" here?

In my experience the competetive player has a larger collection, because they have been evolving their lists as editions/metas change. And any competetive player worth their salt will already know enough about opposing lists/units etc. to adjust accordingly.


Or imagine it like this. You're the older one of two brothers, you're 15 and he's 9. You're going to wrestle, and you demand that he step up and match you. He doesn't because he can't, he's practically half your size, and you quickly smash him over and over every time. You do this for 3 hours or so. Maybe he has fun for the first 30 min, but for the rest he's crying because you just keep flooring him.

You're not reighteous, you're an ******e.

As the competetive player you have the upper hand. Man up and game like a gentleman. Cut your list up if you have to and play lower points or whatever, bringing less synergy, or change the scenario so they have a chance and you have a challenge. You'll undoubtedly know the game better so the responsibility is on you.

You've clearly never even babysat a 9 year old if you think they'll get tired of wrestling you when you don't let them win.

And honestly if the casual player doesn't want to buy new models and wants everyone to conform to them, that's their problem. The hobby isn't as expensive as you're making it to be. Time consuming? Oh sure I'd agree with that (at least when it comes to painting). If youre gonna buy something though you shouldn't have issues using it unpainted as long as you have other painted stuff.

So no, it isn't being a "gentleman" stepping down your list.

I don't think there's actually a significant difference between a competitive and casual 40k player.

What exactly is the cut off point between the two? Is an eldar player too hardcore to play with if he has as many dark reapers as he can fit in a list? What if that's part of his fluffy Altansar list that's led by Mugen Ra and he's been collecting a mostly reaper based army for years and years prior to this codex arbitrarily deciding that reapers get to be busted now? Is 2 units of reapers too many? What if a friend that's in a summer long narrative league with you has 1 unit of every aspect warrior but decides to pick up a second box of reapers for his birthday mid season because that 1 unit is performing so well for him lately that he wants more, is he now a competitive player for caring about results in any fashion? What about the person who plays an army that currently has a very low win rate but is doing everything in their power to maximize its strengths and win games? They're playing with the 'competitive' mind set but are only getting a 'casual' win rate.

As long as the game has conditions to win and lose, imbalances in the armies will effect all levels of play. Imbalances are just seen through a magnifying glass in a more competitive environment, when That Guy goes fluidly from stormravens to brimstone horrors to conscripts to dark reapers over the last 6 months and never stops dominating tables at his local game store more through his wallet than his tactics that it becomes an obvious boogeyman to blame the player, and not the flaws in the system that enable him.

 Insectum7 wrote:


In my experience the competetive player has a larger collection, because they have been evolving their lists as editions/metas change. And any competetive player worth their salt will already know enough about opposing lists/units etc. to adjust accordingly.


Or imagine it like this. You're the older one of two brothers, you're 15 and he's 9. You're going to wrestle, and you demand that he step up and match you. He doesn't because he can't, he's practically half your size, and you quickly smash him over and over every time. You do this for 3 hours or so. Maybe he has fun for the first 30 min, but for the rest he's crying because you just keep flooring him.

You're not reighteous, you're an ******e.

As the competetive player you have the upper hand. Man up and game like a gentleman. Cut your list up if you have to and play lower points or whatever, bringing less synergy, or change the scenario so they have a chance and you have a challenge. You'll undoubtedly know the game better so the responsibility is on you.

There's a whole number of self proclaimed 'fluffy', 'casual' players who have armies as large, if not larger, than self proclaimed 'competitive' players. If we're going to talk about theoreticals, its equally plausible for a fluffy player to have the same or more options in list building than a competitive player, ignoring of course the fact that most players fall somewhere in the between.

Given the very likely case that both players have similar sized armies to choose from, its of course only logical for the players to meet at a middle ground; the competitive player tones down a little while the casual player tones up a little.

Crowdsourcing rules from a few "competitive players" is the current issue.

 Blacksails wrote:
There's a whole number of self proclaimed 'fluffy', 'casual' players who have armies as large, if not larger, than self proclaimed 'competitive' players. If we're going to talk about theoreticals, its equally plausible for a fluffy player to have the same or more options in list building than a competitive player, ignoring of course the fact that most players fall somewhere in the between.

Yeah, are we going to just forget about people like the fluff players who build an entire space marine chapter, way beyond what you can field in a normal game, because they love the fluff concept of having one and are very dedicated to their hobby? Perhaps "casual" means having a small collection if you use it in the sense of "making a low investment in the hobby", but in the common context here where it means "not playing competitively" there are lots of "casual" players who have huge collections.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
There's a whole number of self proclaimed 'fluffy', 'casual' players who have armies as large, if not larger, than self proclaimed 'competitive' players. If we're going to talk about theoreticals, its equally plausible for a fluffy player to have the same or more options in list building than a competitive player, ignoring of course the fact that most players fall somewhere in the between.

Yeah, are we going to just forget about people like the fluff players who build an entire space marine chapter, way beyond what you can field in a normal game, because they love the fluff concept of having one and are very dedicated to their hobby? Perhaps "casual" means having a small collection if you use it in the sense of "making a low investment in the hobby", but in the common context here where it means "not playing competitively" there are lots of "casual" players who have huge collections.

Addendum: Consider also that said fluffy/casual player's large collection with many options doesn't mean they've got many good options. The fact that I've got a lot of Deathwatch Marines doesn't make them less terrible.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


In my experience the competetive player has a larger collection, because they have been evolving their lists as editions/metas change. And any competetive player worth their salt will already know enough about opposing lists/units etc. to adjust accordingly.


Or imagine it like this. You're the older one of two brothers, you're 15 and he's 9. You're going to wrestle, and you demand that he step up and match you. He doesn't because he can't, he's practically half your size, and you quickly smash him over and over every time. You do this for 3 hours or so. Maybe he has fun for the first 30 min, but for the rest he's crying because you just keep flooring him.

You're not reighteous, you're an ******e.

As the competetive player you have the upper hand. Man up and game like a gentleman. Cut your list up if you have to and play lower points or whatever, bringing less synergy, or change the scenario so they have a chance and you have a challenge. You'll undoubtedly know the game better so the responsibility is on you.

There's a whole number of self proclaimed 'fluffy', 'casual' players who have armies as large, if not larger, than self proclaimed 'competitive' players. If we're going to talk about theoreticals, its equally plausible for a fluffy player to have the same or more options in list building than a competitive player, ignoring of course the fact that most players fall somewhere in the between.

Given the very likely case that both players have similar sized armies to choose from, its of course only logical for the players to meet at a middle ground; the competitive player tones down a little while the casual player tones up a little.

Owning large armies means nothing if changing units doesn't increase significantly the level of competitiveness of the army. I have 5000+ points of drukhari if I consider some upgrades but I can't play a fair game against a top tier list. On the flip side I own almost twice the points in orks but with them I can play against a top tier just bringing one list, a green tide, which is a style of playing that I really hate. Approx 15.000 points of stuff reduced to one list, that I also despise, in order to play a TAC game against tournament players? No thanks.

Talk before playing, tone up or down your list or the opponent's one. I'd always tone down my list in order to match the same level of competitiveness that the opponent may have, and I'm also willing to face a list which is clearly better than mine. But not a list that basically auto-wins, I don't see any point in doing that.

I'll always seek a more balanced game. Winning, and of course losing, in turn 1 or 2 doesn't interest me.

A guy that has a whole space marine chapter is not casual. His a hardcore fan. When a players has the tools and dont want to try and make a stronger list with what he has I can see the point. (I personally could do a meta list of commander and drone spam but i dont because i hate how it plays. But at the same list I wouldnt complaint of a player using a meta list agaisnt me unless doing it by surprise in a prearranged battle with weaker lists)
But for most of the time, casual players are normally casual players with barely enough models for a 2000 army, with the models they buyed because they liked how they look. And lets be honest here and realistic. The amount of times one of those caduals was driven out because of a cutt troath competitive player is magnitudes higher than the amount of situations where a totally new guy to the hobby that is competitive to the core and looked for a very powerfull list before buying it was driven out because he was bully by a bunch of those infame CAAC. I, living in Spain, land of CAAC players, were thinking of using forgeworld is sin, can tell you, that the first situation is common. The second one I havent seen it happen once.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

So, what you're saying is that the player with the competitive list should spend time and money to provide alternate models, learn your codex and list well enough to tone down their list appropriately, and figure out the necessary changes, all so that you don't have to spend the same time and money. Why is only one player allowed to say "it's too much work" here?

Actually read what I posted. I'm mainly talking about an opponent who has nowhere near the skill of yourself and maybe never will. Are you really always going to stop all over them until they either stop playing your or worse, potentially leave the game? Why does it hurt your ego to not be a good sport and come down to their level once or twice?

I don't think it's even a case of competitive versus casual anymore. What this thread is showing me is that more skilled players arent interested in being good opponents for someone of a much lower skill.

And this answers the question of why the "casual" player can't up their game. If they are not skilled enough (yet hopefully) then they can't up their game.

 BlackLobster wrote:
I'm mainly talking about an opponent who has nowhere near the skill of yourself and maybe never will.

"Never will" is, almost all of the time, not an accurate statement. Anyone can be pretty good at 40k if they want to invest the effort. Very, very few people are just permanently hopeless and never going to improve. But quite a few people decide that they don't want to improve, but still expect the better player to make up for their refusal and save them from ever having to improve.

What this thread is showing me is that more skilled players arent interested in being good opponents for someone of a much lower skill.

And many lower-skill players aren't interested in being good opponents either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
Owning large armies means nothing if changing units doesn't increase significantly the level of competitiveness of the army.

But it sure does remove the "I'm too poor to afford better units" factor. If you can afford to buy 5000 points you can afford to buy some strong units in there so you can play a competitive list. So why should you be entitled to buy only the units you want to buy, while other players have the full burden of buying alternative units and altering their own armies to suit your choices?

Pancakey wrote:
Crowdsourcing rules from a few "competitive players" is the current issue.

It's really not. Overly competitive players are a good source for playtesters and they'll see how far the game will bend with extreme results. This is how you playtest yet GW don't appear to do this method.