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.

I've been playing casually for mumble mumble years. Sure, I like it when I win too.

The "real" win is that my opponent & I have fun.

We've had some games that have been knife edge competitive, others that have been very silly. Only once have we abandoned a game, when one of us said "Let's try this...." and this was too one sided (which in fairness we should have anticipated: "bring all your flyers he said, without having any AA). We reset, played a different combination and had fun with that instead.

If I play a competitive list I’ll set my own victory conditions for myself. Something fluffy and thematic. And nothing that I even discuss with my opponent; as far as they are concerned they won and I lost never mind that in my head my dudes just had to hold that one objective to be evacuated with fighter/bomber aerial support, or that they got a relic or whatever. Make it fun for yourself; make a match against a competitive player casual to yourself.

I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general. And I think that's what it comes down to right there- this is general chat. I would expect greater concentrations of narrative players in the background forum and a greater concentration of people who are content with the hobby due a primary interest in modelling would be in the painting and WIP forums.

Personally, I'd like to see a Crusade forum- I've seen playerson this board who are also Crusaders, but few threads about Crusade. Often, when it comes up in the context of other threads, Crusade play tends to be fairly quickly dismissed by the community at large.

I'm always curious about what people do for campaign play, the strategies they use to grow their Crusade force; I'm curious about how people use their requisitions and battle honouts to reflect the narrative. With this year's WD Tale of four games focusing on Crusade play, I had hoped for discussions of this type in the series, but so far they haven't gone anywhere near as deep as I'd like- they still seem to be approaching the game as if the crusade elements are an add on, rather than integrating that material into the creation of their forces from the ground up.

I'd really like to read about the experiences of anyone who's playing in a Drukari vs Drukari Crusade... It's how I'm planning on growing my army- I'm just a really slow painter. Reading about how other people are using this content would be interesting.

In my expiriance, in places where people have less money to spend on the game, the casual armies do not look as much different from regular tournament lists. Especially if the said lists use a lot of FW stuff, if it was not for marines, the recast armies would be the majority of armies being played.

PenitentJake wrote:
I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general.

Judging by the regular statements made in this forum by many regular posters I wouldn't really say that's the case.

I've decided to play 40k basically only as a casual game. I rather cater to other games for the competitive scene.

However, I also care for a more balanced game and I believe the competitive scene can help in that regard.

 Bosskelot wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general.

Judging by the regular statements made in this forum by many regular posters I wouldn't really say that's the case.

Are there any actual ranked players posting on the forum on a regular basis, from any country?

My own most casual list that I've played in the last 6 months is an extremely odd./week Tyranid force.
I 100% expected to lose. In fact it was almost impossible foe the opponent not to win....

You've all seen the movie Alien I presume?
Spaceship crew investigates a wreck, finds a cache of face-hugger pods, one idiot bends over to take a closer look & gets mugged. After that it's off to the races & alot of bad sequels, comics, etc.

So I made a list trying to replicate this as best I could! 40k style. As the catalyst event of a Tyranid invasion.
1x Broodlord - in strategic reserve.
5x Ripper swarms (3 bases each) - in reserve
3x spore mines (9 spores each) - deployed in my zone
3x Biovores (3 in each unit) - deployed as far out of LoS as possible.
1x Spindle Drone unit (4 models) - in my DZ
2x Guardian Drones - in my DZ
Objective markers for this force were 40mm bases with Alien facehugger pods on them.
Terrain was crashed spaceship debris & hull sections.
As this was a "Narrative" game we suspended the requirement that reserves had to enter by turn 3.

The story:
An alien spaceship has crashed. The opponents force has been sent to investigate. Upon arriving on the scene they find strange leathery pods scattered about & several robots of unknown origin engaged in cleanup. Two larger robots take notice and move to intercept....

The action:
Standard 40K mission (forget wich one), take & hold the 4 objectives, score pts.

If I go 1st? Move to shoot with the Guardian Drones, maybe charge? Move Spindles about my DZ.
If I go 2nd? Same, except if any enemies take objectives open fire on them with the hidden Biovores*. Only target units controlling objectives, starting with those closest.

*There's no way I can make the objectives actually attack my opponents units. So I'll just have to simulate the facehuggers bursting forth via sporemine bombards.

The goal here is to wound, preferably kill, at least one model with a sporemine.

The next turn? If any models have died to a spore, then I'll bring a unit of rippers out of reserve as near as possible.
The rippers will then do everything they can to get out of LoS or off the board.
If any do? Then next turn I'll bring the Broodlord into play & go hunting.

If any spore wounded enemies survive the game, or if any rippers escaped, then stage one of the Tyranid infestation has begun & the next game will be against a GSC as things worsen.
Once the GSC WINS a battle? Then I'll move onto a mycetic spore pod/winged based Tyranid list. And so on up the chain of Tyranid army styles/phases of invasion.

W/L/D, so long as I wound/kill a model via sporemine & a ripper flees succefully? Then my forces objective is achieved. Somehow actually winning via mission objectives would be an improbable bonus....

In this particular game I both lost and failed. None of the wounded enemies survived & none of my resulting rippers got away (so no Broodlord).
This'll run again though.

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?

I think this is a false assumption. Quite a lot of people are talking about cassual play.

I think people seem to be confusing "casual gaming" with "open gaming" when they are two very different things.
A pick up game at your local club with a set power or points limit is still be casual with restrictions used with matched play.
A game where both people bring top tier meta tourney lists isn't likely to be casual but again still can be casual if you aren't actually competing for anything but bragging rights.
If someone rocks up with 10 Knights vs an army of Grots, you best believe that's going to be both casual and a riot of a game.
Casual doesn't mean you throw the rules out the window it just means you aren't competing for a prize.

The problem on Dakka seems to be if you try and approach a thing from a casual/narrative gaming point of view you get shouted down by certain “try hard, mouthy, WAAC” types. They are few in number but very vocal and shift the discussion towards competitive every time. I have even had them calling me. A liar for saying I didn’t care who won or lost. As such the discussion tends to focus on the competitive slant.

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?

Because this is a discussion forum and there is very little to discuss about casual play?

What units do you use? The ones you like.
What does your army look like? Whatever you want you.

When the answer to almost everything is "it doesn't matter, do what you want/enjoy" there simply is not much to discuss.

I think it boils down to the fact that the "casual" aspect honestly dont exist.
We use the term, but i think what we mean by saying it is "house rules" or preset limitations that has a stronger negative effect then the written rules do.

In a sence you could say that drop-in games in local GW shops, is nothing but an exercise in self controll; bring a good winning force and you will quicky find that not many wants to play agasint you in the spesific setting, cus there is an unspoken house rule at play: this is a reqruitment and testing ground, dont obliterate your opponent.

Everyone will at some point turn to competative gaming when their understanding of the game increases.

 Bosskelot wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general.

Judging by the regular statements made in this forum by many regular posters I wouldn't really say that's the case.

I'm always surprised by dakka polls which often show a majority of players that don't seem to care about the competitve aspect. But then again I also agree with Jake's notion that dakka's discussions often feel very focussed on tournament or competitive play.
In the end it's true what many in this thread say: It's hard to discuss narrative or casual play on an international board because, for example, how to write narrative scenarios or campaigns for the selected armies of your 4 friends is not really something where the guy 5000km away can help you with. Of course you could discuss how to enhance your crusade campaign with more narrative missions, or how to use missions from older editions to spice up the experience because I really don't know how the tournament crowd keeps interest in playing the same boring eternal war missions over and over again. But in the end these things are hard to discuss with strangers. That being said I always like to read Penitentjakes walls of text about his ongoing campaigns, no matter what the topic at hand actually is .

 Sledgehammer wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.

In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.

Look at the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game and you'll see a game that allows for actual casual gaming. It frustrates me because I know GW is capable of acheving it.

Also the "git good" argument on a topic about casual gaming and how certain armies are trash, says a lot about how the game and the community caters to casual play.

Yeah, I find the casual vs competitive argument gets a bit silly with people going to one extreme on the other.

A game can be both competitive and casual at the same time. If you just throw competitiveness to the wind you might as well be building dioramas instead or just making "pew pew pew!" noises at each other, it's a game, it's supposed to be competitive. Even if you're playing some special scenario where you are intended to lose (last stand type mission) you're likely playing it to do as much damage to the opponent's force or hold out as long as possible otherwise you're just pointlessly throwing dice.

The fun vs winning discussion is even more absurd. As if you can't have fun whilst also trying to win Some folk act like the words "casual, narrative, fun, relaxed" solely belong together in one category and "competitive, WAAC, try hard" belong uniquely and inexorably in a separate category.

"Everyone will at some point turn to competitive gaming when their understanding of the game increases."

Nonsense. Some folk LIKE tournament play. Some don't.

Competitive play is also easier to discuss, because there are more absolutes.

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?

It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.

Why is that fundamentally flawed?

Sledgehammer wrote:I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

Casual player here. I don't care how hard my army gets beaten, because my enjoyment isn't tied to their performance on the tabletop.

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.

Or, evidently, not.

Sledgehammer wrote:In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.

I think you misunderstand actively trying to get killed with not caring if your models do or not.
When I go and make a list, my first thought is on the narrative, aesthetic, or theme that I'm trying to create. The actual mechanical power of that army is not important. So, yes, it's very easy for me to find narrative satisfaction in that. Evidently, you don't, but that's why you don't play casual 40k, and that's fine.

But maybe stop with the whole "it's impossible to enjoy casual 40k" stuff, because it's evidently not true.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.

In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.

Look at the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game and you'll see a game that allows for actual casual gaming. It frustrates me because I know GW is capable of acheving it.

Also the "git good" argument on a topic about casual gaming and how certain armies are trash, says a lot about how the game and the community caters to casual play.

I am not saying that you or anybody should get good. I am saying that we should be honest with ourselves. The game has always given players considerable freedom in picking their forces. Its not a new thing.

What is the premise of the thread? What is casual play? Does it just mean pickup games? Does it mean games outside of a tournament? I would argue that much of this forum is people making lists and tactics for pickup games, which themselves are usually under Matched Play conditions. Or does casual mean you are relaxed about the game? If that is what it means then I am having a hard time squaring the circle on your intensity about the tabletop performance of your army. If casual means infrequent or irregular play then it should not be a surprise that people do not spend their time on a forum righting about something they do infrequently.

If casual means playing in a relaxed manner where winning is not the first objective then, well, play in a relaxed manner with other like-minded people?

I get the feeling that by casual you mean narrative or maybe themed. And yes, you will likely be at a disadvantage when you bring a narrative list to a pickup game under matched play conditions. I think you need to manage expectations regarding victory when you do that.

Here's a very good recent video on how to improve Open Play:

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?

What exactly are you supposed to talk about here that could lead to lengthy discussion? Talking about casual play tends to be a handful of sentences at best: "Hey man, I like Skorpechs, they're really cool." "I'm glad you enjoy them!" "Me and my friends wrote a campaign with custom missions and it was a lot of fun!" "That's great man! Me and my friends also make our own campaigns and have fun with them!" You've just covered about 95% of the topic.

Competitive play and painting have a lot more content to discuss so that's why the vast majority of conversation is about those.

To clarify, that doesn't make casual play worse than competitive play, it just means there's not as much to talk about.

I don't think it's that there's less to talk about, more that it's the kind of conversation that works more in person where the discussion is fluid and reactions are instant. The number of times I've gone out for drinks with friends and we've just started talking about meme-lists and game ideas is in the low hundreds.

I think there is plenty of narrative lists that can be talked about. People just don't want to. Take, for example, a thread from... I think 6th edition that I participated in:

"Hey so, here's my army. I themed it around an Imperial Guard armored company and have about 400-500 points left to spend after the 10x Russ tanks. What do you think would be fun and thematic with them?"

That was the OP, roughly, IIRC.
What I thought would happen:
"armored infantry is cool in Chimeras but you won't get many. You could try three Thunderbolt Fighters instead. If you really wanted to be cool, though, you could use the lascarbine from the Russ kit and convert up some tank riders - a lot of infantry without Chimeras. Narratively they can get to the battle riding on the Russes. I think for theme they shouldn't have any Heavy Weapons though, as there isn't a lot of space on the tank..."

How it actually went:
"Omg noob taking 10 tanks you will lose every game that is stupid, why take ten?"
[Me, posts a bazillion sources on the 10-tank armored company (3 sqdns of 3 with one Cmd Tank).]
"Omg wow don't put so much stock into the lore, your dudes can do something different. Are you trying to lose games? Wow you must be a fun opponent if I just casually sweep you off the table every game..."

Etc. Eventually the argument petered out. Needless to say, I didn't actually ever figure out what to spend that last quarter or so of my list on.

Op

Youre making the usual mistake of declaring the opposite of competitive as casual.

Thr opposite of competitive is non-competitive.

The opposite of casual is serious.

Casual doesn't mean 'more fun'. It means less invested. My wife is a serious football fan. A casual fan, by comparison will probably know the names of at least some of the main players and will be happy when they win, buy won't buy the yearly strips, won't follow the gossip and behind thr scenes chat, won't be into thr politics and if they miss a game or several,meh. In 40k terms casual can manifest as, for example not caring about the game side too much, or even, not caring about thr other aspects of the hobby, like painting or appreciating the value of the lire.

It is entirely possible to be a serious, but not-competitive player.
And it's entirely possible to be a casual yet competitive player.

Neither is wrong.

But to.answer your question as to why these serious view of thr hobby isn't spoken about more, think about it. It's an Internet forum... if you're coming here, you're probably more serious than little Tim who has glued 8 space marines,both hands and an eye together. These forums tend to self select towards the serious and especially the competitive players. Casual players won't really come here and for non-conpetitive, there's not much to talk.sbout in tactics or gen.disc. you'll tend to find 'those people' hanging out in background and painting/modelling. I also tend to find a lot of the home brewers, narrative etc players tend to just do their own thing.

To me a casual game are for fun, you are playing for the enjoyment of the game. To me this makes casual gaming for more important than the competitive game.

To me a casual game may often be a pick up game, so I'd expect casual games would often fall under match-play.

It's usually not the done thing to not tweak your list once what your playing which leads to casual lists also being take all comer lists.

This still doesn't answer what a casual game or list is though. A casual list almost by definition in an awkward to actually define space. To me such a list will not designed for optimal possible performance, but still has a reasonable performance to it such that it can be effective. With the emergent property that you should be able to have a good fun game against any faction, without either player getting annihilated simply because one of the player's armies is simply that much stronger.

Thus with casual being very hard to define (one group may casually test out their lists for the next tournament, another group may simply play with what takes their fancy) it is far easier to discuss the competitive game.

Not all codexes, or even options in a given codex have been made equal, so even for the casual player there is a huge benefit in understanding what makes your army work, and it's relative place in the competitive meta. Whilst the usual implication in describing a list as ‘fluffy’ is that it doesn’t prioritise performance, and in absolute performance terms would be expected to fall a significant distance below the peak possible performance for that codex, this relationship is by no means guaranteed.

To me one of issues with 8.5 C:SM, and the current Drukhari and Harlies is that it’s very easy to produce lists that are both quite ‘fluffy’ and rather powerful. With such armies you are pretty much having to consciously design a list to ‘casual’, rather than being able to sling together a bunch of models from your collection together than seems like a good fit.

Where the current absolute peak performance lists for a given faction are driven by a small number of things (e.g. units/ stratagems/ traits etc…) it can relatively easy to avoid accidently over tweaking the performance of a list aimed at casual play simply by avoiding such options.

Where things get more troublesome is where the power of a codex isn’t tied to a particular gimmick, or otherwise ingrained in an army.

For instance for casual games in 8E, using marines I avoided Sallies/ Master Artisan and though I usually brought along a Captain I choose not to Chapter Master him. I’ll freely admit that whilst it was often frustrating not to have the very handy abilities that either (or both) would bring overall I felt it was a lot easier to have a good game against pretty much any other ‘casual’ list without either of them.

Looking at some of the currently top of the pile factions (e.g. Drukhari and Harlies) lots of their power is in brutally cost effective troops and transports for them. Mechanisation is both consistent with the lore of these faction and is the avenue for getting optimal performance for these armies. An army from such a faction even if slung together (i.e. intended to be 'casual') could easily be for more effective (i.e. competitive) than intended.

Now that major competitions are aligned to the core rules absolute performance is (near enough) a constant (no more complications of differential performance in Chapter Approved vs ITC environments), this is something that can easily be talked about.

Even if it accepted that casual (may) usually (often?) talk about TAC lists suitable for pick up play typically in the 1.5k-2k range play that aims for sub-absolute peak performance than this is still huge poorly defined space (e.g. how sub-optimal? What is the level of performance desired?).

In short whist I consider casual play more important than competive, as the specifics of what is considered 'casual' is likely to change (if only slightly) from gaming shop/ circles/ group/ club then this makes it harder to discuss online (one groups casual may be anothers semi-competitive etc...) than competitive play.

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?

Here's the thing. Most people _are_ actually talking about casual play. The outliers are just dragging 'tournament statistics' into discussions to 'prove' their assumptions about the game are correct (largely by misreading statistics- the Drukhari are OP thread is hilarious for this, just for the amount of 'data' used to come to wildly opposed conclusions).
The truth is, line between casual and competitive isn't a real one. Its all the same game. The 'bleeding edge' tournament games are possibly a different one, but its important to remember that the discussions about them are being done by armchair spectators who are largely talking out of a very windy cave.

The meta, on the other hand, can be useful to talk about as it gives a baseline for discussion- what kind of armies are often out there (yes, even for 'narrative' games), and how to cope when a new codex shifts how armies work.

ccs wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.

Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.

The whims of fate did not dictate that you accept games against those FOTM net lists. That's on YOU.
The whims of fate do not require you to completely sacrifice effectiveness for theme. It's been a long time since I last read a Tanith book, but they're STILL an IG regiment. They get sent to various fronts & operate alongside other Imperial forces of all types. There's no reason your list can't represent that.

My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

That's so absolute, I'm not sure any casual games exist. Or have ever existed, or could possibly exist in the future.

Your 'whims of fate' remark is equally weird. It assumes other people can't have a good list that they put their 'heart and soul' into that also happens to treat your army like faceless cannon fodder. Is that fine?

Voss wrote:

My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

That's so absolute, I'm not sure any casual games exist. Or have ever existed, or could possibly exist in the future.

Your 'whims of fate' remark is equally weird. It assumes other people can't have a good list that they put their 'heart and soul' into that also happens to treat your army like faceless cannon fodder. Is that fine?

Dictating what kind of army you're opponent can, or should have in order to have a good game, due to the current power level of any one given army is entirely antithetical to a good casual game. It puts players in situations where they either must attempt to deny their opponent playing the army, or list that they want to, not play at all, or change their own list. It creates situations where you have to explicitly outline the rules and conditions, outside of the rules of the game and whereby one player will not, or cannot play the army that they want to if they want to have a good time. If i have to do that, then the rules therefore suck for casual gaming. The rules should be the established baseline for an even casual time, they are not.

Yes some players do not care if they win, but that's not really an argument against wanting even, fun matches for players regardless of the list they want to bring. That is a mindset that again, exists outside of the rules themselves.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?

B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?

It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.

But one of my favourite things involves my enjoyment being dependent on someone else!

Oh no, someone has brought a tournament-winning list to this pick-up game. I'd rather not fight that would you mind toning it down a bit? No? Ok, that's fine.
Boom, situation resolved.
Funnily enough, anyone can and should choose who they want to play against. Casual play is not "play literally everyone because anything else is not casual".