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.

A final warning to all participants, a reminder that rule #1, to be polite, is not optional. Kindly keep this in mind or there will be warnings and suspensions for those who can't be bothered.

Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

FW artillery optimized?

Karol wrote:

Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?

Hi Karol,

You put it the wrong way round. You have the talk first about what you have, what kind of game your into, and you collaborate from there. It takes a bit of game building, accommodation and a like minded approach. Special scenarios can be invented, or specific scenarious from about fifty years of wargaming can be used too.

Nothing is stopping the guy with the better army picking up and walking away, but this scenario also assumes both players are like minded and willing to accommodate and more importantly, interested in a fair game. Similarly, no one I see trying to make him feel like he is playing the wrong way either.

I have played competitive wargames for a long time, and for the past five years, have been heavily involved in playing Narrative and non tournament/less-than maxed out games (I'll use the term 'casual' from now on, but really, have issues with using this term in this context. To me, 'casual' better refers to other things). I tend to see myself as more narrative/casual player these days than 'competitive/tournament' but really, I have no bone to pick with either style, and frankly, see both as bringing something's necessary to the greater hobby.

From a narrative/casual players point of view, in some ways, we are no different to 'competitive' players (and when I use that term. I tend to think of more or less the game you probably play, and how you probably see it - i.e. maxed-out lists, independent list-building, tournaments and pink-up-game culture). The thing is, similarly to you, us narrative/casual players also would like to win. We also want a good game. Nor do we play to lose. Funnily enough, I would also argue that from a narrative/casual players point of view, list-building is also a crucial aspect of the game. That said, it differs from competitive play, which focuses on list-building-for-advantage.

You are obviously approaching this game from somewhere on the competitive spectrum. For me, this spectrum ranges from 'not-competitive' all the way out to 'competitive-at-all-costs'. You are approaching this with the mindset that your listbuilding is a function of your strategic/tactical play. In the same way that 'no race begins on the starting line', you approach this with the POV that building the best list possible (like training to be the best athlete possible) is an important, if not crucial component of playing the game. This is often also tied up with independent-list-building as an aspect of playing a game - i.e. You build a list independent of your opponent, he builds a list independent of you, you select a scenario, deploy and GO! You are not wrong in doing this. Let's be clear. This is fine.

From a narrative players point of view however, things differ here. The difference though is that list-building is generally not seen as a function of strategic/tactical play, but rather as a function of the scenario (and for a narrative game scenario, I personally define 'scenario' as a combination the mission(s) in play, the terrain/board set-up and the opposing forces) or for variety. Similarly, you don't tend to play narrative with 'independent-list-building' as you do in competitive, it tends to be a mutual, collaborative approach (I personally dislike the use of the term 'co-operative' here, that's for a different type/genre of games) with a focus on what fits the 'theme' of the scenario and building forces that 'match' each other, rather than building a 'gotcha!' army. Casual Games, in my experience would probably lean more towards independent list building etc etc, but with more of a focus on B or C grade units and variety, rather than cutthroat competitive play. They still need a bit of collaboration to ensure things roughly match up. As I said earlier though, list-building for narrative/casual is also crucial. If that means points values/power levels get thrown out the window to put down two 'matching' armies, then there's what happens. Generally speaking, the social contract and your mutual enjoyment of the game tends to take precedence over 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Considering this, ttaking obvious choices that are clearly superior would be 'simply what's done'in tournament circles, it gets much less traction in narrative/casual circles. Because it's not the point of the game. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play the best game you can and play your hardest for the win. That's a given.

Essentially, it's just that amongst narrative and casual players, list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in competitive/tournament play.

An for what it's worth as well, narrative and casual players do tend to consider the effectiveness of models before buying/painting them as well. It's just we tend to have different conversations with ourselves as we do this. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, and can't one-shot a knight on turn 1 while generating 800 CPs, so therefore it's useless and not worth buying/painting in the first place, the thought process tends to be along the lines of 'ok, what kind of scenarios could I build, and fit this into, and what would be good match ups and scenarios for it'. Or simply 'yes, I adore this model!' For narrative players, scenario-building (and please see above for how I view 'scenario' In the context of narrative games) and game-buildings is the prime-motivator, rather than competitive at all costs 'going-for-the-win'. For more casual players, the focus is enjoyment of the game, more so than utterly ruthless, utterly cutthroat play.

Karol wrote:

In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.

Indeed. Tournaments and pick-up-games have a viable niche. The thing is, only some things work, and while they're 'clear and easy to understand', a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make that happen. That's not always worth it.

Karol wrote:

The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup.

As a hobbyist, and a Wargame's for 15+ years, I would argue the whole hobby requires owning multiple points of armies, multiple armies etc. As to needing to transport then all the time, that's not true either. There's this wonderfully thing called 'social media' these days, and also, if you're a Luddite like me, phones that you can use to call or text. It's easy to organise ahead of time in terms of what you're gonna bring, and to match up for a good game. Heck, even easier if you play at home, rather than in store.

Karol wrote:

It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true.

The hobby is an expensive one as a whole. But you start small, and build up from there. Like any hobby really. I'm starting crossfit with my wife this week. Do you honestly think I'll be smashing the heavy weights straight off? There will always be limits, on both sides with what everyone can do. There will always be someone just starting out.

Karol wrote:

Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.

What you see on dakka may not necessarily be indicative of the general community. With forums, there is only a limited amount of ways to interact, and they tend to self select for a certain type of positing as lists are easier to talk about in an abstract sense than the far more nebulous game building. The focus on list building do really advantage you typically see here is certainly not indicative of how we play our games for example.

Karol wrote:

It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

I don't think you've ever been exposed to a community, or players that plays this way though. Your community, from what I read from you is a hypercompetitive one where it seems unlike your you'll ever get this. It's hard to get your head around something, if you've never been exposed to it.

Karol wrote:
Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.

Tournament players are probably having a great time, if they're doing one thing they enjoy. There's nothing wrong with it. Thing is, as a casual/narrative player, who plays more for casual fun than ruthless efficiency and curbstomping, who plays with folks that play for the same reason, We also have fun.vtournament players don't have a monopoly on 'enjoyment of the game'. A large part of The issue comes when different people with different desires end up clsshing because they want different games. Neither is necessarily wrong.

Karol wrote:

I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.

No one wants to be dominated. But I don't see it a second 'pulling punches' either. Not everything has to be 'competitive at all costs', and while there are times where it's fun to push yourself to your absolute limits, there's also times where it's fun to just go for a gentle stroll in the park with the dog. Wargaming is no different.

How does it work. You play what's suitable. Or what fits the context of the scenario/mission. Or what you think is a 'good match'. If all you want is to buy ome army, and have that be all you ever play, in all contexts, without any desire to take less/more or expand, I consider that to be disappointing, personally. But ymmv.

Karol wrote:

The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.

Personally I don't see any issue with that. Sometimes it makes sense to run a tank-based battle, sometimes it makes sense to make a scenario where it's skirmishing units, behind enemy lines making a smash and grab or sabotage. Variety is good.

Karol wrote:

And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.

How is that any different to now? Rock/paper/scissors is an element of 40k as much as other games.

Karol wrote:

That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.

Lol, no different to tournament play then.

The top lists ten years ago are totally different to those from 5 years ago, which are totally different from now, which will be totally different to lists in 5 years time. Staying on top of the tournament meta is 'chasing the dragon' and costs a lot to maintain your lists at that level.

To build off what Deadnight said, when my nephew got in to the game, I supported his Guard with my Blood Angels in 2v1 (500+500 vs 1000, then 750+750 vs 1500, then 1k+1k vs 2k) games as he built his army up. If someone has a small collection, it might be nice of you to offer to play alongside them like that.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

FW artillery optimized?

Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

FW artillery optimized?

Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.

IIRC, none of the actual FW artillery models are any dimensionally smaller than the GW artillery models (in fact, they should be larger, either having en enclosed crew compartment or built on a Leman Russ hull instead of a Chimera hull), with the exception of the Platforms/carriage units, which have been nerfed into oblivion rules-wise and are completely immobile and lack a secondary heavy weapon.

"Eldar players. Eldar players are really ok with broken units. Some of them for real get grumpy if you kill one of their models, because "Eldar should not be losing to X army, they have been training for millennia etc etc.""

Hi, I'm an Eldar player.

I want Alaitoc nerfed.

I welcomed the Serpent nerf.

I don't want the WK buffed to IK levels.

I'd like to see Spears go up a *few* more points, maybe.

Point the average Eldar player at Ynnari Deathstars, ScatterBikes, or DAVU, and they'll say "That is/was OP".

 Vaktathi wrote:

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

FW artillery optimized?

Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.

IIRC, none of the actual FW artillery models are any dimensionally smaller than the GW artillery models (in fact, they should be larger, either having en enclosed crew compartment or built on a Leman Russ hull instead of a Chimera hull), with the exception of the Platforms/carriage units, which have been nerfed into oblivion rules-wise and are completely immobile and lack a secondary heavy weapon.

Also they are both (the FW artillery units) are significantly more pts then a Basilisk.
In fact they have not the same rules.

I do think a big part of the way GW envisions Warhammer is sort of how Deadnight described. Like-minded people who probably are friendly with each other (as opposed to some random stranger who you could care less about) and want an enjoyable game.

The "proper" way to play, at least judging from how GW themselves approaches things, is to decide what sort of game you want and go from there, rather than the all-too-common pickup game with a random person down at the shop. If anything, that mindset (as common as it might be) is the outlier; the idea that you barely know the person you're playing against (maybe you saw them a few times at the game store or asked them once about a paint scheme you liked) and you are more interested in getting a game than having a fun game with a like-minded person.

Deadnight wrote:
snip

See this is something no one explained to me. I thought that casual ment, not playing at tournaments. If there is no prize you just play. I also didn't understand the argument of me having a compatitive view point on the game, which to me with a GK army seemed bogus to say the least. Thank you for explaining it to me. I casual means narrative, then all of this makes sense. People here only play matched. No one plays narrative. Pick up games also seem to be played different. there are three ways people play at the store here. there is people play as prep for tournaments, there is people playing game for store events and there is people playing games by asking someone at the store, if they want to play if a table is free. Event games have priority for people like me, who don't play them, those pick up games make up almost all of the game. People that set up games online are those who prep for tournaments or that play event games at the store.

Personally I don't see any issue with that. Sometimes it makes sense to run a tank-based battle, sometimes it makes sense to make a scenario where it's skirmishing units, behind enemy lines making a smash and grab or sabotage. Variety is good.

most people here own 2000pts, as this is what is being played. People that do have more points more often then not don't have 3000pts in the same army, but 2000pts times two in two different armies. Eldar players for example often have a dark eldar and eldar army, maybe 300-400pts of other ally. all IG players have a castellan, a lot have jetbike captins or BA jump pack stuff with scouts, they often don't even have 2000pts of IG. Again am not saying variaty is bad. I agree that is bad, but if for example someone here told every players that owns a castellan, they don't want to play against it, because it is unfun, then the game just won't happen, because they don't have 2000pts of army without the castellan. And am using the castellan just as an example here.

How is that any different to now? Rock/paper/scissors is an element of 40k as much as other games.

No one told me that when I was starting. I always thought that the goal of 8th ed was to have armies at the same level. That is why I kind of a didn't understand the whole w40k is in good place. But I don't understand a lot of things, so am not blaming it on other people.

No one wants to be dominated. But I don't see it a second 'pulling punches' either. Not everything has to be 'competitive at all costs', and while there are times where it's fun to push yourself to your absolute limits, there's also times where it's fun to just go for a gentle stroll in the park with the dog. Wargaming is no different.

How does it work. You play what's suitable. Or what fits the context of the scenario/mission. Or what you think is a 'good match'. If all you want is to buy ome army, and have that be all you ever play, in all contexts, without any desire to take less/more or expand, I consider that to be disappointing, personall

Ok, but from what I have been told the only way to play my faction is to build a tournament list, take as much ally as possible and hope the opponent plays a non tournament list. I don't think any units my faction has is suitable for 8th ed. 8th seems to be a lot about high inv saves, swarms, stacking of extra wounds or MW spam. Elite power armored melee armies that walk across the table or terminators don't seem to have a niche of their own.

I don't think I understand what dogs, have to do with fun. They bite people. But in general I have problems understanding most of the social aspects of stuff. Does having dogs somehow help with w40k? So people are scared you will sick the dog on them and let you win?







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.

IIRC, none of the actual FW artillery models are any dimensionally smaller than the GW artillery models (in fact, they should be larger, either having en enclosed crew compartment or built on a Leman Russ hull instead of a Chimera hull), with the exception of the Platforms/carriage units, which have been nerfed into oblivion rules-wise and are completely immobile and lack a secondary heavy weapon.

Then your opponent seems to cheat because neither emplacements nor the batteries are that small.

The good thing with the "recent" advent of social media is that it is ridiculously easy to setup a game with someone associated with the FLGS and have that talk ahead of time if needed.
Yeah, needing that little talk could be a failing of the game system but with my group of friends I have never seen a rule system remain unchanged past the enforced "3 games play as is" house rule we have.
For pickup games just rolling with whatever shows up, if you want to play that person again you usually dig into what you both prefer for next time.
This is a VERY social game and may require a bit of talk since all the variables are not controlled by a game menu.

 Talizvar wrote:
The good thing with the "recent" advent of social media is that it is ridiculously easy to setup a game with someone associated with the FLGS and have that talk ahead of time if needed.
Yeah, needing that little talk could be a failing of the game system but with my group of friends I have never seen a rule system remain unchanged past the enforced "3 games play as is" house rule we have.
For pickup games just rolling with whatever shows up, if you want to play that person again you usually dig into what you both prefer for next time.
This is a VERY social game and may require a bit of talk since all the variables are not controlled by a game menu.

I've found it much harder to get casual games on social media, like I'll post that I'm looking for a competitive game at 2k points, and I won't get much response... but it has made it much easier to find tournaments. unfortunately I have to drive like an hour to get to one, but I've been to 3 in the past month so far, and am having a lot of fun with it. Social media has made it much easier to find the types of games you're looking for, and since I'm able to find so many tournaments (got 3 more lined up in the next month too) I think the game is in a pretty good place.

Deadnight wrote:

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:

Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?

Hi Karol,

You put it the wrong way round. You have the talk first about what you have, what kind of game your into, and you collaborate from there. It takes a bit of game building, accommodation and a like minded approach. Special scenarios can be invented, or specific scenarious from about fifty years of wargaming can be used too.

Nothing is stopping the guy with the better army picking up and walking away, but this scenario also assumes both players are like minded and willing to accommodate and more importantly, interested in a fair game. Similarly, no one I see trying to make him feel like he is playing the wrong way either.

I have played competitive wargames for a long time, and for the past five years, have been heavily involved in playing Narrative and non tournament/less-than maxed out games (I'll use the term 'casual' from now on, but really, have issues with using this term in this context. To me, 'casual' better refers to other things). I tend to see myself as more narrative/casual player these days than 'competitive/tournament' but really, I have no bone to pick with either style, and frankly, see both as bringing something's necessary to the greater hobby.

From a narrative/casual players point of view, in some ways, we are no different to 'competitive' players (and when I use that term. I tend to think of more or less the game you probably play, and how you probably see it - i.e. maxed-out lists, independent list-building, tournaments and pink-up-game culture). The thing is, similarly to you, us narrative/casual players also would like to win. We also want a good game. Nor do we play to lose. Funnily enough, I would also argue that from a narrative/casual players point of view, list-building is also a crucial aspect of the game. That said, it differs from competitive play, which focuses on list-building-for-advantage.

You are obviously approaching this game from somewhere on the competitive spectrum. For me, this spectrum ranges from 'not-competitive' all the way out to 'competitive-at-all-costs'. You are approaching this with the mindset that your listbuilding is a function of your strategic/tactical play. In the same way that 'no race begins on the starting line', you approach this with the POV that building the best list possible (like training to be the best athlete possible) is an important, if not crucial component of playing the game. This is often also tied up with independent-list-building as an aspect of playing a game - i.e. You build a list independent of your opponent, he builds a list independent of you, you select a scenario, deploy and GO! You are not wrong in doing this. Let's be clear. This is fine.

From a narrative players point of view however, things differ here. The difference though is that list-building is generally not seen as a function of strategic/tactical play, but rather as a function of the scenario (and for a narrative game scenario, I personally define 'scenario' as a combination the mission(s) in play, the terrain/board set-up and the opposing forces) or for variety. Similarly, you don't tend to play narrative with 'independent-list-building' as you do in competitive, it tends to be a mutual, collaborative approach (I personally dislike the use of the term 'co-operative' here, that's for a different type/genre of games) with a focus on what fits the 'theme' of the scenario and building forces that 'match' each other, rather than building a 'gotcha!' army. Casual Games, in my experience would probably lean more towards independent list building etc etc, but with more of a focus on B or C grade units and variety, rather than cutthroat competitive play. They still need a bit of collaboration to ensure things roughly match up. As I said earlier though, list-building for narrative/casual is also crucial. If that means points values/power levels get thrown out the window to put down two 'matching' armies, then there's what happens. Generally speaking, the social contract and your mutual enjoyment of the game tends to take precedence over 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Considering this, ttaking obvious choices that are clearly superior would be 'simply what's done'in tournament circles, it gets much less traction in narrative/casual circles. Because it's not the point of the game. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play the best game you can and play your hardest for the win. That's a given.

Essentially, it's just that amongst narrative and casual players, list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in competitive/tournament play.

An for what it's worth as well, narrative and casual players do tend to consider the effectiveness of models before buying/painting them as well. It's just we tend to have different conversations with ourselves as we do this. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, and can't one-shot a knight on turn 1 while generating 800 CPs, so therefore it's useless and not worth buying/painting in the first place, the thought process tends to be along the lines of 'ok, what kind of scenarios could I build, and fit this into, and what would be good match ups and scenarios for it'. Or simply 'yes, I adore this model!' For narrative players, scenario-building (and please see above for how I view 'scenario' In the context of narrative games) and game-buildings is the prime-motivator, rather than competitive at all costs 'going-for-the-win'. For more casual players, the focus is enjoyment of the game, more so than utterly ruthless, utterly cutthroat play.

Karol wrote:

In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.

Indeed. Tournaments and pick-up-games have a viable niche. The thing is, only some things work, and while they're 'clear and easy to understand', a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make that happen. That's not always worth it.

Karol wrote:

The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup.

As a hobbyist, and a Wargame's for 15+ years, I would argue the whole hobby requires owning multiple points of armies, multiple armies etc. As to needing to transport then all the time, that's not true either. There's this wonderfully thing called 'social media' these days, and also, if you're a Luddite like me, phones that you can use to call or text. It's easy to organise ahead of time in terms of what you're gonna bring, and to match up for a good game. Heck, even easier if you play at home, rather than in store.

Karol wrote:

It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true.

The hobby is an expensive one as a whole. But you start small, and build up from there. Like any hobby really. I'm starting crossfit with my wife this week. Do you honestly think I'll be smashing the heavy weights straight off? There will always be limits, on both sides with what everyone can do. There will always be someone just starting out.

Karol wrote:

Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.

What you see on dakka may not necessarily be indicative of the general community. With forums, there is only a limited amount of ways to interact, and they tend to self select for a certain type of positing as lists are easier to talk about in an abstract sense than the far more nebulous game building. The focus on list building do really advantage you typically see here is certainly not indicative of how we play our games for example.

Karol wrote:

It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

I don't think you've ever been exposed to a community, or players that plays this way though. Your community, from what I read from you is a hypercompetitive one where it seems unlike your you'll ever get this. It's hard to get your head around something, if you've never been exposed to it.

Karol wrote:
Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.

Tournament players are probably having a great time, if they're doing one thing they enjoy. There's nothing wrong with it. Thing is, as a casual/narrative player, who plays more for casual fun than ruthless efficiency and curbstomping, who plays with folks that play for the same reason, We also have fun.vtournament players don't have a monopoly on 'enjoyment of the game'. A large part of The issue comes when different people with different desires end up clsshing because they want different games. Neither is necessarily wrong.

Karol wrote:

I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.

No one wants to be dominated. But I don't see it a second 'pulling punches' either. Not everything has to be 'competitive at all costs', and while there are times where it's fun to push yourself to your absolute limits, there's also times where it's fun to just go for a gentle stroll in the park with the dog. Wargaming is no different.

How does it work. You play what's suitable. Or what fits the context of the scenario/mission. Or what you think is a 'good match'. If all you want is to buy ome army, and have that be all you ever play, in all contexts, without any desire to take less/more or expand, I consider that to be disappointing, personally. But ymmv.

Karol wrote:

The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.

Personally I don't see any issue with that. Sometimes it makes sense to run a tank-based battle, sometimes it makes sense to make a scenario where it's skirmishing units, behind enemy lines making a smash and grab or sabotage. Variety is good.

Karol wrote:

And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.

How is that any different to now? Rock/paper/scissors is an element of 40k as much as other games.

Karol wrote:

That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.

Lol, no different to tournament play then.

The top lists ten years ago are totally different to those from 5 years ago, which are totally different from now, which will be totally different to lists in 5 years time. Staying on top of the tournament meta is 'chasing the dragon' and costs a lot to maintain your lists at that level.

@Deadnight: as usual, great summary of play mode that still seems utterly exotic to dakkanuts, despite showing up repeatedly in various threads and discussions...

@Karol: owning more models than a single list is the norm for narrative and competetive players alike, the collections and unit choices differ, but in the scope of thing greater than your FLGS people rarely own/buy only single build and stick to it no matter what. Competitive folks may trade on ebay/allegro to constantly shift their list while most narrative players will build up their collection as there is no real incentive to get rid of your models, but both ends of the spectrum rarely have collections set in stone. That is a straightforward function of a living game system and GW constantly releasing new stuff and shuffling/shaking rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock nature of 40K. Expecting to only ever owning/buying 2000pts and being able to play this game to desired outcome is, well, naive. As to giving you practical advice - go and try finding a group that play historicals even if you're not into aesthetics/seting, they usually own "guest armies" for you to play with them. The more obsure system and the more "seasoned" players the more they will show you how the mode of playing wargames which Deadnight described works in practice, how extensive pre-game preparations can be and what exact and how many aspects of the general wargaming hobby pick-up 40K culture lacks - narrative/reenactment approach is much, much more prevalent outside of 40K. Then, if such experience suits you, you could try to find other 40K players that are dissatisfied as you are in pick-up 40K culture and nurture your own group of narrative players. However, if neither pick-up 40k culture nor narrative experience similar to the one in historicals suit you, then you should probably shelve your models and change the hobby entirely to end your frustration.

Karol wrote:

They look like a trip pod with a basilisk gun mounted on it. I don't know much about FW units, but I do know that in the building he normal sets up, two chimeras can fit in and he can fit 3 of the basilisk trip pods in it. He doesn't use the FW rules for them tough, as FW is not allowed at the store.

Then I suspect that player is using a 3rd party "counts as" model, as none of the FW kits are built like a tripod. The old Earthshaker Platforms were on a cruciform mount like WW2 88mm Flak guns, the Carriages on big long old school heavy artillery mounts with huge struts and large tow wheels, the Armageddon pattern is a normal basilisk with an enclosed crew compartment, while the Solar Auxilia Earthshaker uses a Leman Russ hull.

Karol wrote:

See this is something no one explained to me. I thought that casual ment, not playing at tournaments. If there is no prize you just play. I also didn't understand the argument of me having a compatitive view point on the game, which to me with a GK army seemed bogus to say the least. Thank you for explaining it to me. I casual means narrative, then all of this makes sense. People here only play matched. No one plays narrative. Pick up games also seem to be played different. there are three ways people play at the store here. there is people play as prep for tournaments, there is people playing game for store events and there is people playing games by asking someone at the store, if they want to play if a table is free. Event games have priority for people like me, who don't play them, those pick up games make up almost all of the game. People that set up games online are those who prep for tournaments or that play event games at the store.

Like I said, I used the term casual/narrative above, but stated I was not entirely happy with using the term 'casual'. Here on dakka at least, and amongst a lot of gamers casual usually infers as 'not tournament'. And 'casual' and 'narrative' are often disparaged by being lumped together at the other end of the spectrum to 'competitive', hence the 'competitive/casual' distinction. In that sense, yes, I did use 'casual' to denote 'not tournament', but be careful in your distinctions as casual and narrative are not necessarily the same. They share some relevant similarities here, when compared to tournament gaming but they are different beasts.

While my previous post was fine in the sense that I used the term casual as 'not tournament', To me, I personally prefer to use casual to denote 'not serious'. A 'casual' sports fan, for example will claim to follow a team. But won't necessarily have a season ticket, or go to/even watch all the games, and may or may not even follow the weekly scores, but will, for example take an interest in the 'big' games, totally fair. I'm a casual rugby fan - Munster rugby club. To me, casual indicates someone who isn't necessarily serious about the hobby. And narrative games tend to lean towards being 'serious' games. I'd pernally regard open war as a casual format. Narrative games take a lot of work. It takes a mature approach to gaming, a good knowledge of the game with emphasis on 'relative' list building (as opposed to 'absolute' list building), an ability and willingness to collaborate and compromise and translate an idea into an on board scenario, with appropriate 'matching' (or not! Depending on scenario) of opposing forces. There's nothing 'casual' about that approach, if it's done right.

Karol wrote:

most people here own 2000pts, as this is what is being played. People that do have more points more often then not don't have 3000pts in the same army, but 2000pts times two in two different armies. Eldar players for example often have a dark eldar and eldar army, maybe 300-400pts of other ally. all IG players have a castellan, a lot have jetbike captins or BA jump pack stuff with scouts, they often don't even have 2000pts of IG. Again am not saying variaty is bad. I agree that is bad, but if for example someone here told every players that owns a castellan, they don't want to play against it, because it is unfun, then the game just won't happen, because they don't have 2000pts of army without the castellan. And am using the castellan just as an example here.

Folks elsewhere build collections and armies, rather than specific sized 'lists'.

My warmachine/hordes khador army has all the warcasters, over a dozen jacks, and pretty much most unit and solos. I have over 180 models. I can make a hell of a lot of 'lists' from that. With 40k, I'm no that's building a set sized list, and am not alone in this approach. I'm building a primaris company/strike force for the Raptors chapter. I have no end goal for any specific size or list. But love the models, love the lore and will continue to build what is essentially a collection from which I can draw for games.

Your group is not wrong in their approach, but if you ask me, it's a very narrow minded view of building armies and playing the game. There is so much more to 40k that they will never experience or appreciate with that approach.

Karol wrote:

No one told me that when I was starting. I always thought that the goal of 8th ed was to have armies at the same level. That is why I kind of a didn't understand the whole w40k is in good place. But I don't understand a lot of things, so am not blaming it on other people.

I'm not surprised to be fair, your group has a very single minded approach to the game that allows no deviation. It's not surprising you won't see other viewpoints.

40k is in a generally good place, but it requires work at your end too. It works best with like minded folks who collaborate on building interesting scenarios and 'matching' the rosters. It's like Lego, or a kit car. This is how gw have always seen their game. It hasn't never been like video games where you plug it in, and it's ready to go without any 'set-up' on your end. And personally, I think it's fair. Everybody wants something different out of a game. Having a 'no variation allowed bare bones default' way of play can end up being stifling. It works, but a lot gets sacrificed on the altar to make it work, and that's not always a good thing.

Karol wrote:

Ok, but from what I have been told the only way to play my faction is to build a tournament list, take as much ally as possible and hope the opponent plays a non tournament list. I don't think any units my faction has is suitable for 8th ed. 8th seems to be a lot about high inv saves, swarms, stacking of extra wounds or MW spam. Elite power armored melee armies that walk across the table or terminators don't seem to have a niche of their own.

The competitive scene may be that. But the competitive scene doesn't necessarily define the game. For some. They insist it does, and their entitled to their view, and to play how they wish, but again, that approach is very narrow and leaves a lot behind. To me, it's not worth it - and I'm not alone in this view.

Karol wrote:

I don't think I understand what dogs, have to do with fun. They bite people. But in general I have problems understanding most of the social aspects of stuff. Does having dogs somehow help with w40k? So people are scared you will sick the dog on them and let you win?

My dog never bit anyone.

But the dog analogy was to illustrate that not everything has to be either 'competitive' or 'pushing yourself to the absolute limit'. There's a time and a place to put every ounce of effort into what you're doing - if you are pushing yourself for that 'personal best' time in a marathon, or aiming for the 'one rep max' for weight lifting, or take any other example you wish. There is also a time where it's not necessary to be competitive or to push yourself to the limit. When I took my dog for a walk, or a jog, I wasn't aiming to beat my personal best time. I wasn't aiming to walk our route in the quickest time ever, or quicker than the last time time I did it. I wasn't trying to walk the route faster than some other guy/girl with a dog. And even if I wanted to do these things, if I was walking with someone else, like my mum or dad, or my wife or a friend, who didn't want to do 'competitive dog walking', and rush around the forest, it's not fair on them either, is it? I was just happy to walk in a nice forest with my dog, and enjoy the scenery and the day and enjoy a nice relaxing.hour or two out and take my time. There's a time and a place for everything. Competitive wargaming has its niche, and I value it. But it does not define the hobby.

 Melissia wrote:
To build off what Deadnight said, when my nephew got in to the game, I supported his Guard with my Blood Angels in 2v1 (500+500 vs 1000, then 750+750 vs 1500, then 1k+1k vs 2k) games as he built his army up. If someone has a small collection, it might be nice of you to offer to play alongside them like that.

Almost missed this, seems obvious now reading it but a really good idea to help the new players.
I will remember and promote that where possible.

Going to use the massive red text now as the previous warning from scant hours ago did not seem to be working for some posters..

I removed the off-topic bickering and will ask, one final time, to stay on topic and to remain polite. REPORT, NOT RETORT.

Failure to do so will result in a nice little vacation.

So I will say this as politely and reasonably chill as possible, but I'm going to do it in a sort of fun metaphor because it's a point I wanna make and I'll do it my way and have a little fun with it.

KNIGHT: "Potion merchant! You are a foul rapscallion, scallywag, and rapacious scoundrel! You have sold a potion to the evil Wizard that transforms him into a monstrous dragon! He is the enemy of our kingdom, and you have given him power which no mortal man should have! He will burn our fields, our homes, and our brave warriors to naught but ash!"

MERCHANT: "Sounds awful, want a potion that will let you turn into a dragon so you can fight him?"

KNIGHT: "I scoff and guffaw at such a preposterous and offensive proposition! I am a noble knight, and shall not resort to such foul trickery and dishonorable sorcery!"

MERCHANT: "Well, then he's gonna kill you and your dudes."

KNIGHT: "Ah-ha! Sinister potion-monger, he shall not! Not, I say! For I am a knight of honor, I shall meet him with my sword and shield! Therefore, to do so- I will purchase a score of potions that make us immune to flames!"

MERCHANT: "Oh, that will work. One hundred gold pieces. And here you go, pleasure doing business with you."

KNIGHT: "Very well, and upon my return, there shall be no dragon! And you shall lament the day you have peddled your dragon potions!"

[The KNIGHT rides away with his potions]

MERCHANT: "Dragon potions, 20 gold pieces! Potions of fire immunity, five gold pieces! Come and get 'em!"

In other words- if the game is broken in favor of someone's faction, and you're competitive- it's not enough that you're simply refusing to switch factions or buy that OP model. If you're spending money to counter the problem, you're just as much supporting the imbalance as the people buying it- maybe even more so when you're chasing the meta. The only way to beat that is not to play, not to buy, not to participate- I mean, do you honestly think GW isn't aware of the units that are really good at countering the ones everyone says is broken?

Stop going to tournaments that allow it, stop doing leagues that allow it, and just let those things turn into a bunch of people using the exact same thing- they might eventually get bored of mirror matches and stop, too- then GW might have to address balance in the rules. But as long as you keep making it profitable for them to make something that's OP, they've got no reason in the world to change it.

If you pet your dog and give him a treat when he bites you, he's gonna keep biting you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
He doesn't use the FW rules for them tough, as FW is not allowed at the store.

Unless this store has banned Sisters of Battle and literally every single discontinued model, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Forge World should be banned. If people want to play Necromunda at the store, then about half of every gang's weapon lists are banned- as are the hired guns, brutes, and hangers-on. Your shop owner has very likely listened to the wrong people about Forge World or is very, very inconsistent with his rules. Maybe a personal bias.

Oh, yeah- there's that. If someone emails GW and tells them "This FLGS carries your products but refused to allow me to play with my models because they have Forge World upgrade kits", rumor has it that GW will send them a very unpleasant email. And as I understand, that unpleasant email clarifies the terms of them carrying GW products in their store.

Any time I go to a new store with tables where I want to play, I will go and make a purchase- anywhere from $50-$100. Then I go to the tables and take out my Forge World models, and ask if it's okay to use them in the store. If an employee says no, I pack them up- then take my purchase and receipt back to the counter and ask for a refund.

Sometimes, out of sheer spite I will go to the shop that DOES allow Forge World and make the exact same purchase, take a picture of the products and receipt. I will then go and do a Google Maps review on the shop that didn't allow Forge World, with a picture of my receipt from their more sensible competitor.

Considering your friend very obviously using unofficial third-party models for the game that give a distinct advantage, that makes this store look even more screwed up.

Just being honest.

Indeed,

Karol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.

Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way?

That is one way. Another is to find a middle ground that works for them. Army building in Warhammer has never been balanced, just some times where it is closer than others (and then the codices/army books/battletomes start rolling out). Most I have seen say, "I brought this much," the other says, "I have this much," and they say, "cool, let's find a table".

Karol wrote:Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?

Sportsmanship is one reason that works rather well. A lot depends on the interactions they have, and some people recognize that ULTIMATE POWAH is not always the reason to play an army. Orks fill this role quite well, in fact.

Karol wrote:In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.

And so what does that have to do with Warhammer not being built for competitive play? Warmachine/Hordes is a much better game for competitive play, yet it is hemorrhaging players where the Extremerollers (extreme Steamroller players who play nothing but tournament-style games) have driven everyone else out of it in the meta. Warhammers are known for not being a competitive game, on the other hand, yet they have been dominating the markets where X-Wing isn't, and close behind them where X-Wing is the dominate.

Karol wrote:The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup. The next day it maybe someone playing a primaris army. It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true. Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

Sorry, but tournament players also own multiple points of armies and even multiple armies. It is almost impossible to find a tournament level army you can't pare down for a less competitively focused game. Heck, those are the only times I played 40K (never did build up a tournament-scale army).

And just because you can't get your head around playing a non-tournament game, has no bearing on how the game was originally designed. Warhammer is not a competitive gaming set. People are trying to fit it in to it because they like the models and they want to have big gaming circuses with them so they can show off. And half the reason I have played few games of 40K is because of those tournament-minded people who would only play with eyes towards the next major tournament would not play with someone who didn't have a tournament army ready.

And to make one final point, in 6th and 7th Edition, my old LGS would have 2 40K tournaments a month. One was the standard 1850 amount you could expect to see at Conventions. The other was very unconventional (pun semi-intended). This one could be set up as 1500 points, but you were required to have 3 Elites/Heavies/Fast Attacks instead of the 2 Troops. There was another that was a team tournament for 2000 points, but you split them how you wanted between you and your partner. Another was a team tournament with each player having 1000 points. Heck, every Halloween for years we had a zombie jamboree where everyone brought a single HQ to face off against a horde of zombies and Typhus (no Primarchs at this time), and if you died, your character became a zombie with all their equipment (Crisis Suit Zombies were nasty).

So, a lot only depends on the imagination your meta is willing to have when setting up their games. There are plenty of suggestions on how to change up your game from ones I've mentioned above, to events in White Dwarf, to old scenario packs like Battle Missions. One just has to look.

Karol wrote:
Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.

I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.

And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.

That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.

Translation: If your friends army sucks, leave your castellans at home and bring your razorbacks and have a nice evening with your friend. I never said that tournament players don't have fun. But as you said, there is no fun in the game when you are being dominated. It's also not fun if you destroy everything your opponent has in one turn. So if they bring a knife to a gunfight, leave your own gun down and grab a knife too. When you do that, you will find out that it doesn't matter what the meta is or who's the top dog in the tournaments. Because your friend does not have ynnari alaitoc dark reapers and shining spears, he has ulthwe wraithlords and storm guardians. And that's ok.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Karol wrote:
Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.

I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.

And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.

That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.

Translation: If your friends army sucks, leave your castellans at home and bring your razorbacks and have a nice evening with your friend. I never said that tournament players don't have fun. But as you said, there is no fun in the game when you are being dominated. It's also not fun if you destroy everything your opponent has in one turn. So if they bring a knife to a gunfight, leave your own gun down and grab a knife too. When you do that, you will find out that it doesn't matter what the meta is or who's the top dog in the tournaments. Because your friend does not have ynnari alaitoc dark reapers and shining spears, he has ulthwe wraithlords and storm guardians. And that's ok.

Yet according to some people, your friend should "git gud" and not ask you to not bring your Castellan, they should play a better list that can deal with it...

Here's the thing Karol:

Imo you are looking at this all backwards. And maybe it's just because of a toxic environment in your local store or something like that, but what you're describing is not my experience at all of how games in non tournament settings work.

The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.

To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.

 Stux wrote:
Here's the thing Karol:

Imo you are looking at this all backwards. And maybe it's just because of a toxic environment in your local store or something like that, but what you're describing is not my experience at all of how games in non tournament settings work.

The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.

To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.

This 100%. GW intends the game to be a fun social thing. That doesn't mean you can't be competitive, but you are supposed to be friends with, or at least friendly with, the people you play against. If you're playing against strangers who don't know you from Adam, or worse people who don't care about you having fun, you're probably playing with the wrong people and they need to learn what a social game actually means.

Karol's 40k environment is very similar to my area's 40k environment.

The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.

To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.

I can get behind this. Have gotten to know a lot of amazing people through the hobby that I play regularly with. Sure, I play randoms during tournaments, but outside of tournaments I am playing with like-minded people, and what we get out of each game is entirely dependent on pre-game agreements. Some want to be very competitive, others want to have silly fun, and all agreed upon before a model touches the table, or even a model is ready for transport.

 Eldarsif wrote:

The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.

To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.

I can get behind this. Have gotten to know a lot of amazing people through the hobby that I play regularly with. Sure, I play randoms during tournaments, but outside of tournaments I am playing with like-minded people, and what we get out of each game is entirely dependent on pre-game agreements. Some want to be very competitive, others want to have silly fun, and all agreed upon before a model touches the table, or even a model is ready for transport.

Agreed. I've met some amazing people through this hobby, I met my boyfriend through this hobby.

pre-game agreements make the game entirely more enjoyable and we often are talking about it days before we actually intend to play, Warhammer is 100% better as a social game, there's so much enjoyment to be had.

Reemule wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.

So it is broken in chaos, but not enough to showup on the table, so your basing brokenness off what again?

I'm not making an argument, I'm rebutting your rebuttal.

Karol wrote:

It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

From my experience tournie play has two parts, list building and actual play. 40k being what it is (on table tactics relatively limited compared to some other systems, but massive granularity and options in the gestalt of lists) emphasizes list building. This has the advantage that if you don't play much you can enjoy listbuilding in and of itself, as some do.

Non tournie games can be identical, where it diverges is when you have people who want to win, but don't want to obsess over army lists. At one end you have guys who take the things that look cool or are painted to equal levels of points, with a few tricks and boosts from wargear and the like, at the other people who take out the toys, then tailor the forces to what should be a fair battle and then in both cases get on with focusing on that part of the game (the playing, not the listbuilding).

So for example last year I did a game for three players (myself and two others) for Imperial Guard arriving to take back the capitol from Chaos forces. What had happened was the Chaos force had made planetfall to link up with cultists who had started to rise up and the Guard had eventually responded. By this point they had lost the major cities with the PDF laying siege. The Guard landed and linked up with the PDF and pushed the Chaos forces back. Of course to make it more fun a bunch of the cultists and PDF had these odd worm like symbols on them. The game was set up, Imperial Guard vs Chaos with the cultist force commanded by the third player, two of the players were in on the secret of what would happen if at the end of the turn if the Chaos player rolled a 7 (D6+ turn number).

To pick the forces we each had a certain power level, then eyeballing the board added in stuff to counter the defences the Chaos player had been given and the disposition of the cultists (decided by the chaos player). The game then commenced the Guard player having certain fortifications and guns to recapture and the Chaos player wanting to hold onto them.

This type of game can be a lot more fun than fighting a standard book of tournie pack mission. It has a narrative, a twist, suitable terrain, etc. etc. (If you want to know what happened, it all went wrong as the Chaos player rolled a 6 at the end of the first turn, had the cultists manning all the emplaced weapons and once their infighting ended the Genestealer cultists came out on top and started shooting up his rear units, whilst the Guard had their advance halted by the turncoat PDF 'russ and chaos vanguard - decisive win for the Genestealer cult!)