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.

 Crimson wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

There are none. Also as the only girl 40k player out if the two dozen or so competitive players, I'm not going to some random guy's house alone. Anyone in the area the tried to play more casually basically got told "get better or don't play", not explicitly, but the words are being loudly unspoken. Thus the meta being what it is. All the casual folks basically got scared off.

Yeah, that is really unfortunate. This is exactly the sort of thing I hate to see to happen. I really wish people could be more flexible about how they approach the game.

How is that not a two-way street, though? Is it really reasonable for one fluffy player or a small minority of fluffy players to expect all of the other players in a competitive meta to accommodate them? They have their meta, they have their relationships, they have their places to play etc. and it's something they've all worked out together. Yeah, it would be nice if they were flexible and played outside of their own comfort zone to make other people happy, but why does all of the responsibility and agency lie with them?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

There are none. Also as the only girl 40k player out if the two dozen or so competitive players, I'm not going to some random guy's house alone. Anyone in the area the tried to play more casually basically got told "get better or don't play", not explicitly, but the words are being loudly unspoken. Thus the meta being what it is. All the casual folks basically got scared off.

Yeah, that is really unfortunate. This is exactly the sort of thing I hate to see to happen. I really wish people could be more flexible about how they approach the game.

How is that not a two-way street, though? Is it really reasonable for one fluffy player or a small minority of fluffy players to expect all of the other players in a competitive meta to accommodate them? They have their meta, they have their relationships, they have their places to play etc. and it's something they've all worked out together. Yeah, it would be nice if they were flexible and played outside of their own comfort zone to make other people happy, but why does all of the responsibility and agency lie with them?

All the people who I've contacted that had similar playstyles and we're subtly shunned from playing at the FLGS have dropped the game completely. That's how pervasive the mindset has become.

By only being welcoming to players who have competition in mind, they're ignoring a vast number of players.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.

Actually, outside needing Immortals, you have a solid starting point. Necrons are my primary army since 4th, and I've seen them move up and down tiers significantly. Right now it ain't looking fantastic, but oh well. Regarding Counts-As...
1. Warriors to Immortals depends entirely on a different paintjob
2. Lords ARE Overlords in the same manner the Lieutenant is a Captain. Models are entirely interchangeable
3. Sentry Pylons can be whatever weapon you want as they almost look the same. I don't know what the points are in the new Chapter Approved but I do remember someone saying one of the weapons was worth looking at now.

Otherwise, you're looking at maybe doing a Battalion with an HQ giving the Fearless bubble to the bigger Warrior blobs, with one of the Crypteks having a Veil. Then an Outrider will give an additional CP and use the scarabs and Wraiths in that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.

Actually, outside needing Immortals, you have a solid starting point. Necrons are my primary army since 4th, and I've seen them move up and down tiers significantly. Right now it ain't looking fantastic, but oh well. Regarding Counts-As...
1. Warriors to Immortals depends entirely on a different paintjob
2. Lords ARE Overlords in the same manner the Lieutenant is a Captain. Models are entirely interchangeable
3. Sentry Pylons can be whatever weapon you want as they almost look the same. I don't know what the points are in the new Chapter Approved but I do remember someone saying one of the weapons was worth looking at now.

Otherwise, you're looking at maybe doing a Battalion with an HQ giving the Fearless bubble to the bigger Warrior blobs, with one of the Crypteks having a Veil. Then an Outrider will give an additional CP and use the scarabs and Wraiths in that.

That's what I've been doing, and I get trashed.
The other Necron player basically turn 1 wrecked me with a DDA, Immotek and Tesla Immortal spam, and a Flyer.

 Blndmage wrote:



All the people who I've contacted that had similar playstyles and we're subtly shunned from playing at the FLGS have dropped the game completely. That's how pervasive the mindset has become.

By only being welcoming to players who have competition in mind, they're ignoring a vast number of players.

What is stopping you guys from playing together, though? What if you formed your own gaming group for casual players?

The one thing that I just can't understand in this thread is the notion that competitive-minded players are the ones who should adapt and play in ways that they might find subjectively less fun to accommodate casual players, and it only goes one way. I must be crazy.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.

Actually, outside needing Immortals, you have a solid starting point. Necrons are my primary army since 4th, and I've seen them move up and down tiers significantly. Right now it ain't looking fantastic, but oh well. Regarding Counts-As...
1. Warriors to Immortals depends entirely on a different paintjob
2. Lords ARE Overlords in the same manner the Lieutenant is a Captain. Models are entirely interchangeable
3. Sentry Pylons can be whatever weapon you want as they almost look the same. I don't know what the points are in the new Chapter Approved but I do remember someone saying one of the weapons was worth looking at now.

Otherwise, you're looking at maybe doing a Battalion with an HQ giving the Fearless bubble to the bigger Warrior blobs, with one of the Crypteks having a Veil. Then an Outrider will give an additional CP and use the scarabs and Wraiths in that.

That's what I've been doing, and I get trashed.
The other Necron player basically turn 1 wrecked me with a DDA, Immotek and Tesla Immortal spam, and a Flyer.

Well the Flyers suck right now, so that's really just bad luck on that end.

If I have the specifications of the list I can tell you what to do. I'm working on a list utilizing the Stormlord myself.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:



All the people who I've contacted that had similar playstyles and we're subtly shunned from playing at the FLGS have dropped the game completely. That's how pervasive the mindset has become.

By only being welcoming to players who have competition in mind, they're ignoring a vast number of players.

What is stopping you guys from playing together, though? What if you formed your own gaming group for casual players?

The one thing that I just can't understand in this thread is the notion that competitive-minded players are the ones who should adapt and play in ways that they might find subjectively less fun to accommodate casual players, and it only goes one way. I must be crazy.

The 40k community can be toxic.
My local meta is subtly toxic.
People who left were so turned off the game that they sold/got rid of their armies.
The local FLGS sees no issue as they get sales, and it's subtle gak.

 Luciferian wrote:

The one thing that I just can't understand in this thread is the notion that competitive-minded players are the ones who should adapt and play in ways that they might find subjectively less fun to accommodate casual players, and it only goes one way. I must be crazy.

It is just that it is usually easier to tune down a list than to tune it up. And with some armies there is an absolute limit how much they can be tuned up; the best possible GK list will be weaker than a mediocre Eldar list, and I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect people to write off entire factions. But can someone explain to me how bringing a suboptimal list makes the game less fun for the competitive player, assuming that the opponent does the same? I totally understand how not actually playing as well as you could (i.e. making tactical mistakes on purpose) would be not fun, I wouldn't want to do that either. But why cant you try to play competitively with a 'bad' list? What's unfun in that? I just don't get it...

I always try and make armies I like, at least, around as much of a framework as I can.

For example, before the Gladius was even a thing, I aimed for fluffy Battle and half Battle Companies. Sure, I had some leeway as to if I took Bikes or Assault Marines (and later Centurions), or if I took Devastators or Devastator Centurions, but the framework was there, and no matter if all of the Devastator options were trash - I still wanted to take them. Did certain weapons that were powerful end up in my lists? Yeah, but that was more of a "you look good with this, and this is my rationalization behind it". I never went back and made sweeping changes across my armies when and if the meta changed. It was an investment, I guess. The meta changes, but YOUR army, built for your whims, will always be yours.

For me, this is a massive perk of building your armies as you like them (if the way you like them has no bearing on the competitive strength of it). Your army will always look how you want, it will always have the units you think are appealing, and that won't change. Being able to take the options you like, regardless of how powerful they are at that moment, is more important to me personally.

 Blndmage wrote:

The 40k community can be toxic.
My local meta is subtly toxic.
People who left were so turned off the game that they sold/got rid of their armies.
The local FLGS sees no issue as they get sales, and it's subtle gak.

I don't understand what "subtly toxic" means. Are they rude? Do they have a demonstrable pattern of abusive behavior? Do they use epithets? I don't think that not playing the game the way you think it should be played really constitutes toxic behavior.

If you have a pool of players who are not having fun playing in the local competitive meta, who have a means of contacting each other and a place to play, how did it not occur to any of them to just play with each other instead of giving up altogether? Did they expect the FLGS to force the competitive players to play with them?

What do you see when you see your army? The way I look at it, Casual/narrative players like myself see - or are working to make it - a story, with characters and plot arcs and motivations and adventures. Why else would I kit-bash my warlord, give him a name/backstory, and do the same for his myriad of lieutenants? A more competitive player, I think, sees a sporting tool: An exercise in their prowess and tactical acuity. Neither of these are wrong, I think, but were we have the argument appears to be when the casual player like me can't for the life of them see why the competitive player is playing a foot-ball game in the middle of our great american epic.

In all seriousness, I get the whole "Being a good sport and playing the game your buddy wants to play - even if you don't.". Most of my disagreement from competitive players lie in the few comments I read where it was implied that I'm "doing it wrong.".

 Crimson wrote:

It is just that it is usually easier to tune down a list than to tune it up. And with some armies there is an absolute limit how much they can be tuned up; the best possible GK list will be weaker than a mediocre Eldar list, and I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect people to write off entire factions. But can someone explain to me how bringing a suboptimal list makes the game less fun for the competitive player, assuming that the opponent does the same? I totally understand how not actually playing as well as you could (i.e. making tactical mistakes on purpose) would be not fun, I wouldn't want to do that either. But why cant you try to play competitively with a 'bad' list? What's unfun in that? I just don't get it...

It's not up to you or I to decide what constitutes "fun" for anyone else. If someone finds it unfun to play with a sub-optimal list, who is anyone else to tell them they're wrong, let alone "toxic"? If they're not actively being jerks to people how is that wrong?

 Luciferian wrote:

It's not up to you or I to decide what constitutes "fun" for anyone else.

No, but it was an honest question. I don't just get it, please explain.

 Lazzamore wrote:
What do you see when you see your army? The way I look at it, Casual/narrative players like myself see - or are working to make it - a story, with characters and plot arcs and motivations and adventures. Why else would I kit-bash my warlord, give him a name/backstory, and do the same for his myriad of lieutenants? A more competitive player, I think, sees a sporting tool: An exercise in their prowess and tactical acuity. Neither of these are wrong, I think, but were we have the argument appears to be when the casual player like me can't for the life of them see why the competitive player is playing a foot-ball game in the middle of our great american epic.

In all seriousness, I get the whole "Being a good sport and playing the game your buddy wants to play - even if you don't.". Most of my disagreement from competitive players lie in the few comments I read where it was implied that I'm "doing it wrong.".

Agreed. I don't have any issue with people who want to play to showcase their tactical skill and attempt to "beat" the game, or be beaten by a more powerful opponent. I could play a game like that, but it's certainly not something I'd ever do on a regular basis.

Any issue I've had with competitive players, or anyone really, is devaluing the different ways because can enjoy the game. All ways of playing and enjoying the hobby are valid, just not to everyone. Anyone who says "X is invalid" is right out for me.

Bharring wrote:
It's hard to have a fair completely-blind pickup game.

Fortunately, metas tend to coallasce. So you should get a feel for what's the appropriate "competitiveness" for your meta.

It's really not if both players build their list with the goal of winning games. The only time it's hard to have a fair pickup game is if someone is going in with a purely fluff-based, subpar list and expecting other people to handicap themselves when that's not always going to be an option.

The Castellan statline really stimulates the power gamer in me. But man I cannot stand the way that thing looks. Even power gamers gotta draw the line somewhere.

One thing that's been working reasonably well at my games at the store is just asking a simple "competitive or no?" before bringing our dudes in. If they answer yes, it seems to be generally agreed that both parties can expect any flavor of maximum cheese available in the meta. If they answer no, we usually tend to share some, if not all of our lists before the day of the match. I have still run into issues where my weakest possible lists end up being too points efficient due to not having a lot of inefficient models in my collection (read: marines) but in general I've found this has been working pretty well. If someone tells me straight up that they play more casual games and field mostly marines, I will tone down as much as my collection allows and then send them my list in advance to make sure they're comfortable playing against it.

Sometimes there will be unfair games no matter what list you bring due to both players not having enough models to meet in the middle. That's pretty much unavoidable in a game like 40k.

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

It's not up to you or I to decide what constitutes "fun" for anyone else.

No, but it was an honest question. I don't just get it, please explain.

It might put a bad taste in their mouth to intentionally handicap themselves. They might find the list building itself to be the most fun part of the game. It doesn't really matter why. Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

I guess my point is that poor, disabled, and brand new gamers have a right to play the game.

You shouldn't feel obligated to chase the tournament meta when you never play in tournaments. Having a meta where everyone is always honing thier list for tournaments isn't fun when you can't afford said tournaments.

Eg. After the last FAQ, I posted on the FLGS Facebook group (we all use it to arrange games, etc) and asked about a more casual tournament, 1500 points, maybe trying a faction lock on CP, maybe run it for charity. Long story short, folks wound up running a 750 doubles thing with a $20 entry fee, when a part of my original idea was making a tournament that's accessable to thoes that might not be able to pay the normal $10 competitive tournament fee.

TLDR: lots of 40k players are quite privileged, and would rather put on a big event that makes them look good than run something with a more inclusive attitude.

You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

'Should...' I don't know it they 'should', I really just don't understand why it is so difficult. this seems to be this American misguided individualism thing: 'You can't tell me what to do!' Well, yeah, I can't. I just think the community works better and grows if people try to be more accommodating. If you don't want to do that, then you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

Yeah. Except rules change, and pretty rapidly too these days. Once the thing that was good when you bought it is built and painted it might have already been nerfed. Or perhaps some people might just want to use models and factions that happen to have bad rules because they like how they look or like their themes.

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

'Should...' I don't know it they 'should', I really just don't understand why it is so difficult. this seems to be this American misguided individualism thing: 'You can't tell me what to do!' Well, yeah, I can't. I just think the community works better and grows if people try to be more accommodating. If you don't want to do that, then you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

Yeah. Except rules change, and pretty rapidly too these days. Once the thing that was good when you bought it is built and painted it might have already been nerfed. Or perhaps some people might just want to use models and factions that happen to have bad rules because they like how they look or like their themes.

Yeah that. The rules will never, ever influence my purchases. I play R&H because the theme and the models are cool, not because the rules are good (mostly cause they're gak.)

 Blndmage wrote:
I guess my point is that poor, disabled, and brand new gamers have a right to play the game.

You shouldn't feel obligated to chase the tournament meta when you never play in tournaments. Having a meta where everyone is always honing thier list for tournaments isn't fun when you can't afford said tournaments.

Eg. After the last FAQ, I posted on the FLGS Facebook group (we all use it to arrange games, etc) and asked about a more casual tournament, 1500 points, maybe trying a faction lock on CP, maybe run it for charity. Long story short, folks wound up running a 750 doubles thing with a $20 entry fee, when a part of my original idea was making a tournament that's accessable to thoes that might not be able to pay the normal $10 competitive tournament fee.

TLDR: lots of 40k players are quite privileged, and would rather put on a big event that makes them look good than run something with a more inclusive attitude.

This is 40k, not the USSR. 40k is a luxury, not a human right. While it's admirable to want to put on an event for less advantaged players, your local competitive meta doesn't owe it to you to participate in your event, play casual games with you, or to stop playing the way they like to.

If you want to put on a charity 40k event, I think that's a great idea, but that's on you.

Congratulations, you've made me wish I'd never started this thread....

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

'Should...' I don't know it they 'should', I really just don't understand why it is so difficult. this seems to be this American misguided individualism thing: 'You can't tell me what to do!' Well, yeah, I can't. I just think the community works better and grows if people try to be more accommodating. If you don't want to do that, then you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

Yeah. Except rules change, and pretty rapidly too these days. Once the thing that was good when you bought it is built and painted it might have already been nerfed. Or perhaps some people might just want to use models and factions that happen to have bad rules because they like how they look or like their themes.

I find rules will mostly be a universal trend. On top of that, I create a LOT of Counts As due to me hating the design of most of the GW characters. In fact, every single character I got is converted and can be representative of quite a few special characters or HQ builds.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I guess my point is that poor, disabled, and brand new gamers have a right to play the game.

You shouldn't feel obligated to chase the tournament meta when you never play in tournaments. Having a meta where everyone is always honing thier list for tournaments isn't fun when you can't afford said tournaments.

Eg. After the last FAQ, I posted on the FLGS Facebook group (we all use it to arrange games, etc) and asked about a more casual tournament, 1500 points, maybe trying a faction lock on CP, maybe run it for charity. Long story short, folks wound up running a 750 doubles thing with a $20 entry fee, when a part of my original idea was making a tournament that's accessable to thoes that might not be able to pay the normal $10 competitive tournament fee.

TLDR: lots of 40k players are quite privileged, and would rather put on a big event that makes them look good than run something with a more inclusive attitude.

If you want to put on a charity gaming event, that is on you
This is 40k, not the USSR. 40k is a luxury, not a human right. While it's admirable to want to put on an event for less advantaged players, your local competitive meta doesn't owe it to you to participate in your event, play casual games with you, or to stop playing the way they like to.

If you want to put on a charity 40k event, I think that's a great idea, but that's on you.

I would run one, if I wasn't both poor and disabled.
Playing is getting harder and harder, but I'm going to keep playing.

If I have the models and rules, and there's a venue that let's anyone play, I should be able to find a game, right?
But unless it's a matched play, tournament rules game, no one ever even responds to my attempts at organizing something.
There's lots of cool stuff that now is only supported via the PL system. I spent ages kitbashing my own versions (because FW is stupid expensive, and I had a theme to maintain.).
Should I be allowed to run my Knarloks? They have current rules, but no one will play PL.
I have an entire Kroot army I built in 4th that has valid PL rules. No matter what I do, none of the locals will play PL because "you can just break it, it's stupid, play points."

 Blndmage wrote:

Playing is getting harder and harder, but I'm going to keep playing.

Good! And when there will be new players, try to get them involved in more casual play.

If I have the models and rules, and there's a venue that let's anyone play, I should be able to find a game, right?
But unless it's a matched play, tournament rules game, no one ever even responds to my attempts at organizing something.
There's lots of cool stuff that now is only supported via the PL system. I spent ages kitbashing my own versions (because FW is stupid expensive, and I had a theme to maintain.).
Should I be allowed to run my Knarloks? They have current rules, but no one will play PL.
I have an entire Kroot army I built in 4th that has valid PL rules. No matter what I do, none of the locals will play PL because "you can just break it, it's stupid, play points."

It doesn't really sound that your local community would be open to such ideas, but a good house rule for such units is that PLx20=points for point based games. Then they can be combined with other stuff that uses points. Might be worth suggesting at least.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Congratulations, you've made me wish I'd never started this thread....

Please, spare me the moralizing. I started off trying to have a civil discussion in good faith, but there's only so much I can handle when it comes to people acting like competitive play is some kind of moral defect and competitive-minded players should just suck it up and accommodate the whims of casual players. It's not even "you play the way you want, and I'll play the way I want," it's "you play the way I want or you're a bad person." I mean come on.

A thought...

We wouldn't be having as intense of a discussion if the game was actually fair and balanced, with each faction being capable of being competitive and few (if any) units that aren't worth taking.

Honestly, all y'all are arguing about is how to get around the fact that this game does not have balanced factions or units.

Instead of fighting each other over how competitive or not people should play, how about you keep asking GW to actually make a fair and balanced game? Use your energy to be loud about it too.

Arcanis161 wrote:
A thought...

We wouldn't be having as intense of a discussion if the game was actually fair and balanced, with each faction being capable of being competitive and few (if any) units that aren't worth taking.

Honestly, all y'all are arguing about is how to get around the fact that this game does not have balanced factions or units.

Yeah, absolutely.

Instead of fighting each other over how competitive or not people should play, how about you keep asking GW to actually make a fair and balanced game? Use your energy to be loud about it too.

I really don't think there is a shortage of people being loud about that! But I have played this game twenty years, and it has never been balanced... so let's just say my expectations on that area are not terrible high.

 Blndmage wrote:


I would run one, if I wasn't both poor and disabled.
Playing is getting harder and harder, but I'm going to keep playing.

If I have the models and rules, and there's a venue that let's anyone play, I should be able to find a game, right?
But unless it's a matched play, tournament rules game, no one ever even responds to my attempts at organizing something.
There's lots of cool stuff that now is only supported via the PL system. I spent ages kitbashing my own versions (because FW is stupid expensive, and I had a theme to maintain.).
Should I be allowed to run my Knarloks? They have current rules, but no one will play PL.
I have an entire Kroot army I built in 4th that has valid PL rules. No matter what I do, none of the locals will play PL because "you can just break it, it's stupid, play points."

I'm sorry if the local players in your area don't like to play casual games, and you do. I'm sorry that they don't like to play PL games, and you do. It sounds like there were other players in your area who also preferred to play casually, so perhaps it would have behooved you guys to play together rather than trying to get the more competitive players to change. I'm positive that you can find someone to play with if you try, though. It just may not be those competitive players, and that's OK.