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.

 Blndmage wrote:
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?

Why would you assume this? Having open table space doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have other people interested in playing, and it sounds like you have some very specific expectations that don't line up with what everyone else wants to do.

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."

Well yes, because PL is a bad system. Not wanting to use it is an entirely rational position to take. And note that those 4th edition Kroot models technically have 8th edition rules, but those rules carry an explicit note that they aren't really supported anymore and shouldn't be considered part of the normal game. It's kind of like having an army built for a fan codex and then expecting people to let you use it. Yeah, you might love it, but you have to accept that you're asking for a special treatment from everyone you play with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Those two statements are completely contradictory. If there are a "vast number of players" interested in this anti-competitive style that you're looking for then you should have no problem organizing games. Even if the competitive people aren't interested you're always free to form a separate community and do your own thing. Your claim of being shunned only makes sense if you assume that people like you are a small minority that can be shunned, and can't survive without the support of the competitive majority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

They do, and some of those players want to play competitively. You're expecting those poor/disabled/new gamers to invest in multiple armies, one for the competitive game they're interested in and one for people like you.

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.

You aren't obligated to chase the meta. You're free to decline to participate in tournament practice and such and play whatever you like. But other people aren't obligated to set aside the tournament practice they enjoy and give you a game that they aren't going to enjoy as much.

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.

That's what you get when you aren't the TO. You have to settle for what other people want to run. At some point you have to invest the effort in running your own events if you have such specific expectations, all of them incompatible with the standard tournament format, for how the event will be run. And you might find that even a $20 entry fee is barely covering the costs of an event, at anything less than $10 the host is almost certainly losing money on the deal. So maybe think about the entitlement involved in complaining that other people didn't pay to run the exact perfect event you wanted to have?

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.

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.

Fair and balanced is never going to mean that every combination of choices is equal, even if the choices are balanced against each other, and some people will just have to have that less effective choice.

You also have people that deliberately refuse to use things that are there to improve their army because they don't think the game should be like that or it doesn't fit their fluff.

Better internal balance will make the difference less stark and it will reduce the instances of people accidentally building a weak army while increasing the variety in strong armies. It won't fix people deliberately handicapping themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

You need to create the nucleus of your own gaming group (if it doesn't exist somewhere already). There very likely are a bunch of people playing more casually in your area but you need to figure out how to reach them since they are likely to have little or no involvement with the store.

You can use the store for play space initially, just make sure that you are meeting there for pre-arranged games. At that point you can just ignore the regulars.

Or try and cultivate some gaming buddies from your friends.

For a reaaally long time in my short gaming life I used to play "fun" and "fluff" lists that weren't based on spam or max optimization, because I wanted to play a fun game where both opponents can do stuff and not get stomped to dust because of a more powerful list. Looking back at this I think it was just the excuse I gave myself because I didn't have a lot a models and had to play with whatever I had in my collection. Recently I changed my mindset because of the feeling of getting bitten back by this mentality. Thing is: anyone's idea of a "fun and casual list" may not be the same as another's. Not long ago my FLG manager asked if I would do an initiation game at 1000 pts with someone who plays Guard, it would be like his third game. I said "sure" and wrote a diverse list of Dark Angels with a Redemptor, Intercessors, a Librarian and a few other stuff. Not an optimized list by a long shot. Then the guy shows me his list: 3 Tank Commanders, Mortar squads, Ratlings, Primaris Psyker. He got first turn and decimated more than half my army from across the table so needless to say I lost.

So now I bring a good list with my AdMech whenever someone wants an initiation, they might get tabled but they get to still kill stuff, they learn about all the phases and everyone's happy. And for serious games I stopped the artificial casualness and started writing well-though lists because while I don't like crushing someone's hopes in the first turn of the game I certainly dislike it more when it happens to me because I wanted to be nice, at least if I'm getting crushed now I know I did my best in all aspects.

"Casual" lists don't have a proper definition and so someone's idea of casual will be an optimized list for another, sometimes because the codex is just so good. Drukhari can hardly make bad lists when you give half a thought about it for example. So now I play optimised lists and tone it down just a little when facing absolute newbies and that's it.

 Aaranis wrote:


"Casual" lists don't have a proper definition and so someone's idea of casual will be an optimized list for another, sometimes because the codex is just so good.

Yeahhhhh this is it. What has drawn me to pure competitive lately is the complete lack of ambiguity. If both parties go in expecting Castellan/bullgryn/smash captain, chances are, it's going to be a good fight.

I only play things I like. Thing Is, I like an army that has a sense.
So, I end up having armies that work reasonably well even if I play in a relaxed way.

Well yes, because PL is a bad system. Not wanting to use it is an entirely rational position to take. And note that those 4th edition Kroot models technically have 8th edition rules, but those rules carry an explicit note that they aren't really supported anymore and shouldn't be considered part of the normal game. It's kind of like having an army built for a fan codex and then expecting people to let you use it. Yeah, you might love it, but you have to accept that you're asking for a special treatment from everyone you play with.

Just because you or I don't like the system does not mean it is bad. Repeating yourself without a valid argument does not make your position any better.

PL is easy, fast to assemble and close enough for a match between some more hobby/ fluff orientated people.
Yes it is exploitable, yes it is easily exploitable if you go full optimization. Still for a casual pickup game it is not to terrible, of course if your opponent is not a asshat about it.

Pts are "more " balanced yes. But it would also be a ilusion to say the game is balanced anyways. So any balancing argument falls flat.

Not to mention that PL never was intended to be ultra balanced but rather to get playing fast and be done with it.
Basically 2 systems for differing needs.

Under the line: A general talk to your opponent before a match is generally better for the game and the enjoyment people get out of it, even swapping out lists helps with that.

Also: They were offical supported models, so why should people have a right to deny it. In a match?
same really, just because they don't produce space marines of the old school, does that mean that i now can go take a hike off a cliff, if i have, let's say certain combinations of chapter masters/ chaos lords?
Because GW said so since they changed their policy?

That is extremely narrow minded.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Just because you or I don't like the system does not mean it is bad.

Correct, it doesn't. PL is not bad because I dislike it, it's bad because it fails to do the job of a point system: evaluating the strength of a unit. There is no situation where PL works better than conventional points. The fact that it doesn't always fail miserably when used by players who don't want to exploit it doesn't make it a good system, any case where PL works would also work just fine with conventional points.

Also: They were offical supported models, so why should people have a right to deny it. In a match?

Because they don't have 8th edition rules. Do I have a right to come up with fan-made rules for my old FW turret emplacements and expect everyone to play against them just because they used to have rules? Of course not. Sometimes units/models get dropped from the game and no longer have current rules, that's just how it works.

 Peregrine wrote:
any case where PL works would also work just fine with conventional points.

Except, of course, for when a datasheet exists but does not have points, as in this example.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because they don't have 8th edition rules.

In this example the models do have official rules. Just not points.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Just because you or I don't like the system does not mean it is bad.

Correct, it doesn't. PL is not bad because I dislike it, it's bad because it fails to do the job of a point system: evaluating the strength of a unit. There is no situation where PL works better than conventional points. The fact that it doesn't always fail miserably when used by players who don't want to exploit it doesn't make it a good system, any case where PL works would also work just fine with conventional points.

Also: They were offical supported models, so why should people have a right to deny it. In a match?

Because they don't have 8th edition rules. Do I have a right to come up with fan-made rules for my old FW turret emplacements and expect everyone to play against them just because they used to have rules? Of course not. Sometimes units/models get dropped from the game and no longer have current rules, that's just how it works.

Nice point in overlooking the argument, Peregrine.

PL is easy, fast to assemble and close enough for a match between some more hobby/ fluff orientated people.
Yes it is exploitable, yes it is easily exploitable if you go full optimization. Still for a casual pickup game it is not to terrible, of course if your opponent is not a asshat about it.

Pts are "more " balanced yes. But it would also be a ilusion to say the game is balanced anyways. So any balancing argument falls flat.

Not to mention that PL never was intended to be ultra balanced but rather to get playing fast and be done with it.
Basically 2 systems for differing needs.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nice point in overlooking the argument, Peregrine.

I overlooked nothing. PL is just not better at serving any need, other than virtue signalling and telling competitive players that list optimization is not welcome. Anything that can be done with PL can be done better by the conventional point system.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nice point in overlooking the argument, Peregrine.

I overlooked nothing. PL is just not better at serving any need, other than virtue signalling and telling competitive players that list optimization is not welcome. Anything that can be done with PL can be done better by the conventional point system.

A so you are one off these stuborn people that can't look over the size of their dinnerplate in that case I feel sorry for you.
Also Virtue Signaling? You are serious?

And who excactly might be telling the competitive players in this case that optimization is not welcome?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
In this example the models do have official rules. Just not points.

They have pseudo-official rules where FW has explicitly stated "we aren't really supporting these models anymore, these are not proper rules and not approved for matched play". It's obvious that this is something FW threw together in a few minutes to stop the complaints about certain OOP models no longer having rules, and barely better than fan-made rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also Virtue Signaling? You are serious?

Absolutely. Certain CAAC players love PL because it's poorly balanced and shows off their commitment to avoiding tournament-style play, and is yet another opportunity for smug superiority about BEER AND PRETZELS FORGE A NARRATIVE ALL YOU WAAC TFGS TRY TOO HARD.

And who excactly might be telling the competitive players in this case that optimization is not welcome?

Self-identified "casual" players who don't want competitive lists/players in their games. Because PL has the connotation of "just casual, don't care about winning" attached, even though this is found nowhere in GW's rulebooks, it's shorthand for "don't optimize your list" and more competitive players aren't likely to have much interest in the game.

Absolutely. Certain CAAC players love PL because it's poorly balanced and shows off their commitment to avoiding tournament-style play, and is yet another opportunity for smug superiority about BEER AND PRETZELS FORGE A NARRATIVE ALL YOU WAAC TFGS TRY TOO HARD.

Self-identified "casual" players who don't want competitive lists/players in their games. Because PL has the connotation of "just casual, don't care about winning" attached, even though this is found nowhere in GW's rulebooks, it's shorthand for "don't optimize your list" and more competitive players aren't likely to have much interest in the game.

For someone complaining about such a mindset you seem to have an awfull lot in common with it just from the other side of the spectrum, i hope you realise that.

Not Online!!! wrote:
For someone complaining about such a mindset you seem to have an awfull lot in common with it just from the other side of the spectrum, i hope you realise that.

You do realize that I'm not a competitive player, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
For someone complaining about such a mindset you seem to have an awfull lot in common with it just from the other side of the spectrum, i hope you realise that.

You do realize that I'm not a competitive player, right?

You still show up and complain as soon someone brings up PL. You are kinda advocating gatekeeping also.

And whilest i have no idea what your lists look like or you play, you make that impression.

And btw i agree with you that you can't force a community to just adapt to your style of game. I however would not dismiss the potential the PL would have or a open tournament based upon prepared PL armies or pts in order to get more people in the game, because in the end we profit more if the population of the game is better.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
For someone complaining about such a mindset you seem to have an awfull lot in common with it just from the other side of the spectrum, i hope you realise that.

You do realize that I'm not a competitive player, right?

You could have fooled us. You invented "CAAC" as a counter to "WAAC", you constantly say that players should "learn to build strong lists" rather than expect a tournament list to be toned down for a casual game, you seem to hate on PL and Narrative and Open, basically you act exactly like the stereotypical douchebag competitive player who thinks everyone else needs to "git gud" and thinks it's fine to roll up to a casual game night with a fine-tuned tournament list for a GT without any warning, curbstomp someone who isn't playing a competitive list, and then call them a scrub and tell them to learn to play.

Sorry to call you out like that, but you say you're not a competitive player while acting the opposite in pretty much all of your posts. Also, as someone who thinks PL can be fun (note I didn't say good, I said fun) for really laid back things, I don't get the hate. I mean yeah, points are more fine-grained, but I think the issue with PL stems from the mindset of people using it (i.e. "Everything is free so I'll take all the best stuff just because") rather than the system itself being horrible. Can it be widely unbalanced? Sure. Are points probably a better way of doing it? Also likely. But PL has its place.

Wayniac wrote:

You could have fooled us. You invented "CAAC" as a counter to "WAAC", you constantly say that players should "learn to build strong lists" rather than expect a tournament list to be toned down for a casual game, you seem to hate on PL and Narrative and Open, basically you act exactly like the stereotypical douchebag competitive player who thinks everyone else needs to "git gud" and thinks it's fine to roll up to a casual game night with a fine-tuned tournament list for a GT without any warning, curbstomp someone who isn't playing a competitive list, and then call them a scrub and tell them to learn to play.

I'm not a competitive player but the CaaC crowd is at least as toxic (possibly more so as they are more disingenuous about their motivations) as the WaaC crowd.

I also don't think anyone should be demanding that other people accommodate their lists. You should be adjusting your list at least as much as you're asking them to adjust theirs.

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't understand what "subtly toxic" means

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

Because people are getting scared off before enough of them are there to tell the rest off and go do so. New 40k players don't just show up enmass, it's expensive, time consuming and that's before you even get to the table. Community accessible tables themselves are also something of a limited resource and you've already been told.

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.

No one is saying you can't play a tournament meta ever, they're just saying perhaps you shouldn't immediately follow your urge to curb stomp the bejesus out of people because you can abuse the rules better than they can(or will).

They're saying perhaps you should actually teach people how to play the game in general, help foster a community that would draw in more players over time, and thus have even more competitive people can be shunted off into tournaments for you because there are more people into the game in general. Be straight up with your competitive lists and maybe, just maybe, try random gak out to see how effective it is when playing newer or more casual players.

If people ENJOY playing, then more people will play with you. And some times people are looking for slightly different games and if you're accommodating to that they are more likely to play with you. Over time it also means they'll be more likely to try your version of the game, but with the build up time of a 40k army it's not something you can expect out of the box. This is playground gak dude.

There's three stores in my community, two of them are casual as gak, one of them was competitive as hell. Two of them still have a community after 8th dropped, guess which two? The ones that don't immediately turn into ghost towns when the competitive people throw fits over their things changing. The third is only starting to make a resurgence now, a year and a half in. The other two are considerably larger than they were, almost entirely by new players. The escalation league I'm getting involved in is a painters league where they're more competitive about the paint jobs than the play. And that sounds wonderful to me, but you know what, at the end of the escalation league, they hold a tournament, and if I manage to keep up well enough with the league I'm damn well going to try that tournament. Still have no interest in just walking into a tournament setting day one.

Subtly toxic is not being able to support a larger community because of overly narrow perceptions of how to play and an inability to accommodate people who do not match your absolute favorite way of playing. If you are unable to do this then your community will not grow as well as it otherwise could because you will drive away people who do not immediately assimilate to your views. Something doesn't require massive open signs that something's wrong to actually have things going wrong. Things being toxic can be subtle.

If you embrace more aspects of the hobby you can draw more people into it as there are more aspects of it for them to be interested in.

Scott-S6 wrote:I also don't think anyone should be demanding that other people accommodate their lists. You should be adjusting your list at least as much as you're asking them to adjust theirs.

Agreed. I'm a casual player, but I wouldn't demand a person accomodate me if I wouldn't do the same for them. I'm more likely just going to take my normal (read, casual in comparison) list and play them, but if they didn't like the idea of going against a person who didn't bring their A-Game, I probably wouldn't play them. Just as I'd expect no less from someone who couldn't learn how to relax a bit and focus less on the competitive side.

Both sides are fine, you can decline from whoever you want to. The attitude under which you do so is more of the issue for offence, I think.

Also, can we please leave the PL discussion out of this? It'll end up like all the others - with some people being unable to realise that their opinion isn't fact, asserting they "know" other people's thoughts and values better than they do, and uncaring that their values aren't the same as other people.

I think, to avoid derailing this thread, it would be best to just not mention PL.

 Peregrine wrote:

They have pseudo-official rules where FW has explicitly stated "we aren't really supporting these models anymore, these are not proper rules and not approved for matched play". It's obvious that this is something FW threw together in a few minutes to stop the complaints about certain OOP models no longer having rules, and barely better than fan-made rules.

No need to be so harsh about the Forgeworld! Sure, we all know that they write trash rules, but people should still be allowed to use them!

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

They have pseudo-official rules where FW has explicitly stated "we aren't really supporting these models anymore, these are not proper rules and not approved for matched play". It's obvious that this is something FW threw together in a few minutes to stop the complaints about certain OOP models no longer having rules, and barely better than fan-made rules.

No need to be so harsh about the Forgeworld! Sure, we all know that they write trash rules, but people should still be allowed to use them!

This. I mean, they're rules are usually worse than fanmade in some cases, but not being able to use them would be lame. Can't help but hope that doesn't happen to my army.

I always love the anti FW rules crowd.
So easy to anger over their misguided belief that ALL FW is evil because of 1 or 2 models.
Yet adamant that everything produced by the gods of GW is perfect.
So pathetic.

CAAC don't really exist guys. With that term you're tipycally referring to people that don't tone up their armies if they can't compete with optimized lists, but usually there's a good reason: they don't have the models.

I can't talk for other people but I'd certainly prefer to tone down my list than allowing a new player to field a completely proxied list. Threre's no fun in playing without a certain degree of WYSIWYG.

People that own large collections and have a good experience of the game should definitely try to make use of their entire collections even if it means bringing models that are extremely bad on the table. Winning a game because a mediocre unit was the MVP is amazing and it's not impossible when two non-optimized lists face each other.

Auto-winning is never fun.

 Blackie wrote:
CAAC don't really exist guys. With that term you're tipycally referring to people that don't tone up their armies if they can't compete with optimized lists, but usually there's a good reason: they don't have the models.

I can't talk for other people but I'd certainly prefer to tone down my list than allowing a new player to field a completely proxied list. Threre's no fun in playing without a certain degree of WYSIWYG.

People that own large collections and have a good experience of the game should definitely try to make use of their entire collections even if it means bringing models that are extremely bad on the table. Winning a game because a mediocre unit was the MVP is amazing and it's not impossible when two non-optimized lists face each other.

Auto-winning is never fun.

In real life? It's probably as frequent as actual WAAC people.

In forums? Yeah, there are people who are CAAC.

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.

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.

This is 100% correct. Some of us have been. I started playing this game in the late 90s and have told every GW employee I've ever had a conversation with that I wish they would balance the game better for competitive play. I told the head of GW North America when he was visiting the Hoover store. I told them in emails every time I had to ask for a rules clarification. The Frontline gaming guys have told them. However, they make rules to sell models and accommodate the fluff, balance seems to come third. As soon as they switch the entire philosophy of the company to write rules based first on balance, then make sure they fit with the fluff, and allow models to sell themselves based on being used in a game that's actually balanced and fun to play no matter what faction you prefer, then things will change. Until then I might as well go outside and yell at the wind to stop the hurricanes from coming.

CAAC as used here tends to mean "someone who doesn't play competitive and thinks it makes them superior to do so", which I can say I have never encountered. But that's generally the usage, not someone who just plays casual games but someone who takes an air of moral superiority for not "dirtying" themselves with powergame lists.

As opposed to WAAC which is "plays to win and doesn't care about the enjoyment of their opponent"

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
How do you make an army? Is it a WAAC army or an army you like?

I hear people say some of the choices I make for my necron army aren't good because "That unit iz t3h suxx0r5!" Well, Maybe I just like that unit, or I feel that another unit isn't fitting with the army background I created.

Plus as I see it,. one new rules change can nerf a WAAC army at GWs whim, but the army I like will always be the army I like.

Some choices are quite medicore or rather a waste of points. I don't think people will use vindicators or Whirlwinds in space marine lists because there are much better units in the codex.

The basic problem is a matter of civility. Like any human interaction between two people, you have to come to an agreement on the interaction to have a positive experience. Just because someone says yes doesn't mean you can inflict all of your fetishes on them. Find common ground and begin there, or walk away. No game is better than a bad game.

Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
any case where PL works would also work just fine with conventional points.

Except, of course, for when a datasheet exists but does not have points, as in this example.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because they don't have 8th edition rules.

In this example the models do have official rules. Just not points.

This is funny.

Toofast wrote:

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.

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.

This is 100% correct. Some of us have been. I started playing this game in the late 90s and have told every GW employee I've ever had a conversation with that I wish they would balance the game better for competitive play. I told the head of GW North America when he was visiting the Hoover store. I told them in emails every time I had to ask for a rules clarification. The Frontline gaming guys have told them. However, they make rules to sell models and accommodate the fluff, balance seems to come third. As soon as they switch the entire philosophy of the company to write rules based first on balance, then make sure they fit with the fluff, and allow models to sell themselves based on being used in a game that's actually balanced and fun to play no matter what faction you prefer, then things will change. Until then I might as well go outside and yell at the wind to stop the hurricanes from coming.

GW, balance, yeah right. If they changed everything to be competitive focused and took away casualness from the ruleset, many many players would be upset. The game has always been waaaaaaayyyyy more beer/pretzels than ultra-competitive. unfortunately we can blame that on the need "to show how much better you are than others mindset". what happened to just having fun(subjective), you know, non-competitive.

as for PL, most of my recent games have been PL and every single one of my opponents said they had more fun(subjective). Its really hard to break the cycle of addiction to points. play the weird units, the over costed, that one model you really like but has gakky rules, etc... I'm more than capable to play super-dirty lists(just dont like to), in fact I have a game next week against shield captain bike spam and we're playing points. I'm not looking forward to face stupid netlist crap, probably not going to have fun and cant wait until it's over. the only reason I'm playing him is everybody else wants me to. then back to regularly scheduled "normal" games with "normal" players, you know, the ones whom care about everyone's enjoyment.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Nah, it goes further than that. Outside the tourney environment you have to fit in with those your playing with. You prove yourself un-fun to play with & you'll have few, if any, games.