Casual vs Competitive

[Smurfalypse]

 

 

 

 

I feel obliged to once again attest to the fact that by the very definition of "competition", it is impossible to not play 40k (or any wargame) competitively.

 

Competition in biology, ecology, and sociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, mates, for prestige, recognition, awards, or group or social status, for leadership. Competition is the opposite of cooperation.It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition

 

therefore, anyone playing for fun is having fun by (at least) trying to win. There is no such thing as "non-competitive" wargaming - it would be a contradictio in adiecto.

I think you make a very good point with that last statement. If two players come to the table, set up terrain, deploy armies and attempt to fulfil the victory conditions of a scenario, they are competing in a wargame, no matter how friendly the banter, no matter how wel painted the armies, no matter how tasty the snacks are.

 

Once you have two people that come to a table, set up terrain to represent a specific event that they have agreed upon, deploy the armies that have mutually agreed fit the specific event, and move them around the table to simulate the events that they have agreed to play out, they are no longer wargaming. They may be having a great time, they may have wonderfully painted armies, they may have tasty snacks, but they aren't playing the same game as the folks in the first example.

Except the second scenario means that there is a way to play 40K without being competitive. Which runs contrary to Nehekhare's extreme belief that this is a wargame, only a wargame and nothing but a wargame and if you put a model on the table, you are playing to win by any means necessary.

But are you really playing 40k when you are specifically not competing? I think that there are a near-infinite number of ways to enjoy one's models, and playing a game of 40k is just one of them, but when you play the game, you are competing.

 

Also, I double-checked, and I don't see "by any means necessary" in Nehekhare's post, which is one reason why I liked the point he made - he didn't resort to hot-button words.

 

Let me ask this:

If you are playing non-competetive 40K, what do you call the other people playing? How do you react to them and their units?

 

I think we all play to win when we place our models at the table, at least we try to win. We may not place the best stuff on the table, but I cant imagine people moving their models around on the table top with anything other than a tactic in mind.

 

Example. I play with a local gaming group (Chantilly Gamers Legion) and they are SUPER casual. When I am playing any one of them I bring some pretty poor lists (not that any CSM list is considered poor in a tournament setting :P). Literally I will have three units of two Mutilators each, or two Forgefiends, or sixteen man unit of CSMs with Mark of Khorne+BP/CC/Bolter and Icon of Wrath, or a walking Daemon Prince, or Terminators, or whatever I feel like playing with.

That said, the moment I put my models on the table I am playing to make a game of it. I do not care if I win or lose, but I cannot imagine someone playing a game who is not moving their models to give themselves a tactical advantage. In this sense I have to agree, when we are at a table and moving our stuff we are playing to win the game. May not really care if you win or lose, but you are trying to win. I think that is more the point that Nehekhare is trying to impress on us, and it is one I find pretty much spot on.

 

That however does not mean that there are not people who just play to do whatever, but the vast vast majority play to win that individual game, even if they do not care if they win or lose.

[Wayniac]

I'm sorry but... if you aren't actively going to TRY to win (even if it's a bad attempt) then why actually play a game?  What is the point in setting up for a game where you're not actually trying to accomplish anything?  Set up a diorama or something instead.

[Rain]

I know that not all competitite players are dicks, and as I've said it's just my anecdotal experience but it was enough to make me not want to play in any kinds of tournaments after facing 2 especially egregious folks one playing Tau and the other Space Wolves. Hilariously enough I beat the SW guy pretty soundly with my DE and he literally said that he was in the Army and threatened to "bust my head open outside" don't believe me if you don't want to, but it happened. Point is, some people take winning WAY too seriously.

 

As far as the semantics of any game with a winner and loser being competition, come on, let's get real, there is playing to win but also enjoying the play by play even if you end up getting trounced and then there is playing to win just to win. I'll again use SC2 as an example, when I play on ladder with randoms I don't know, I play just to win. I still don't cheese because I'm not a jerk, but past that I don't care if my opponent enjoys the game, if I see an opportunity to mass units he has no counter to I consider that part of the tactics of the game and of course do so. When I play 40k, I do care about how my opponent feels about the game, and I don't like making my opponent feel like he can't do anything.

 

A good example of this is DE and Night Shields with pre-measuring in 6th. Played correctly, a shooty DE list can deny most return fire just with manuevering/cover and Night Shields, yes this takes skill to do, but it also minimizes your opponents ability to do anything especially if they are fielding say, a marine horde. So in a non-competitive scenario I would also take a CC archon and Incubi and maybe even some CC wracks and a haemy with some weird wargear and try to charge in to collect some slaves. Sub optimal? Yeah, but it creates drama and is fun for everyone since you get all kinds of nail biters rolling 2+ shadowfield saves against wounds that would instakill the Archon, etc.

[Ammonius]

I feel obliged to once again attest to the fact that by the very definition of "competition", it is impossible to not play 40k (or any wargame) competitively.

Competition in biology, ecology, and sociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, mates, for prestige, recognition, awards, or group or social status, for leadership. Competition is the opposite of cooperation.It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition

therefore, anyone playing for fun is having fun by (at least) trying to win. There is no such thing as "non-competitive" wargaming - it would be a contradictio in adiecto.

I think you make a very good point with that last statement. If two players come to the table, set up terrain, deploy armies and attempt to fulfil the victory conditions of a scenario, they are competing in a wargame, no matter how friendly the banter, no matter how wel painted the armies, no matter how tasty the snacks are.

Once you have two people that come to a table, set up terrain to represent a specific event that they have agreed upon, deploy the armies that have mutually agreed fit the specific event, and move them around the table to simulate the events that they have agreed to play out, they are no longer wargaming. They may be having a great time, they may have wonderfully painted armies, they may have tasty snacks, but they aren't playing the same game as the folks in the first example.

Except the second scenario means that there is a way to play 40K without being competitive. Which runs contrary to Nehekhare's extreme belief that this is a wargame, only a wargame and nothing but a wargame and if you put a model on the table, you are playing to win by any means necessary.

But are you really playing 40k when you are specifically not competing? I think that there are a near-infinite number of ways to enjoy one's models, and playing a game of 40k is just one of them, but when you play the game, you are competing.

Also, I double-checked, and I don't see "by any means necessary" in Nehekhare's post, which is one reason why I liked the point he made - he didn't resort to hot-button words.

Let me ask this:

If you are playing non-competetive 40K, what do you call the other people playing? How do you react to them and their units?

I think we all play to win when we place our models at the table, at least we try to win. We may not place the best stuff on the table, but I cant imagine people moving their models around on the table top with anything other than a tactic in mind.

Example. I play with a local gaming group (Chantilly Gamers Legion) and they are SUPER casual. When I am playing any one of them I bring some pretty poor lists (not that any CSM list is considered poor in a tournament setting ). Literally I will have three units of two Mutilators each, or two Forgefiends, or sixteen man unit of CSMs with Mark of Khorne+BP/CC/Bolter and Icon of Wrath, or a walking Daemon Prince, or Terminators, or whatever I feel like playing with.

That said, the moment I put my models on the table I am playing to make a game of it. I do not care if I win or lose, but I cannot imagine someone playing a game who is not moving their models to give themselves a tactical advantage. In this sense I have to agree, when we are at a table and moving our stuff we are playing to win the game. May not really care if you win or lose, but you are trying to win. I think that is more the point that Nehekhare is trying to impress on us, and it is one I find pretty much spot on.

That however does not mean that there are not people who just play to do whatever, but the vast vast majority play to win that individual game, even if they do not care if they win or lose.

I'm glad to hear that you have a fun place to do 40k

I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of playing to win, but not caring whether you win or lose. I suspect that you are a happier person than I am for having that ability :)

Let me just go on record as saying that even though I'm not sure I understand the mindset, I'm not saying it's wrong.

[Ammonius]

I know that not all competitite players are dicks, and as I've said it's just my anecdotal experience but it was enough to make me not want to play in any kinds of tournaments after facing 2 especially egregious folks one playing Tau and the other Space Wolves. Hilariously enough I beat the SW guy pretty soundly with my DE and he literally said that he was in the Army and threatened to "bust my head open outside" don't believe me if you don't want to, but it happened. Point is, some people take winning WAY too seriously.

 

As far as the semantics of any game with a winner and loser being competition, come on, let's get real, there is playing to win but also enjoying the play by play even if you end up getting trounced and then there is playing to win just to win. I'll again use SC2 as an example, when I play on ladder with randoms I don't know, I play just to win. I still don't cheese because I'm not a jerk, but past that I don't care if my opponent enjoys the game, if I see an opportunity to mass units he has no counter to I consider that part of the tactics of the game and of course do so. When I play 40k, I do care about how my opponent feels about the game, and I don't like making my opponent feel like he can't do anything.

 

A good example of this is DE and Night Shields with pre-measuring in 6th. Played correctly, a shooty DE list can deny most return fire just with manuevering/cover and Night Shields, yes this takes skill to do, but it also minimizes your opponents ability to do anything especially if they are fielding say, a marine horde. So in a non-competitive scenario I would also take a CC archon and Incubi and maybe even some CC wracks and a haemy with some weird wargear and try to charge in to collect some slaves. Sub optimal? Yeah, but it creates drama and is fun for everyone since you get all kinds of nail biters rolling 2+ shadowfield saves against wounds that would instakill the Archon, etc.

Ok, I see now. I think i get it.

 

Although I don't think a 2+ shadowfield roll is a "nailbiter" :)

[Rain]

Hah, it is when there are 3 or 4 such rolls to be made, and you roll them one by one. I mean even on 3 rolls, that about a 43% of failing one of them and that's all you get against S6 and above and even if not a single fail means the save is gone, it's a nailbiter!

[Smurfalypse]

I feel obliged to once again attest to the fact that by the very definition of "competition", it is impossible to not play 40k (or any wargame) competitively.

Competition in biology, ecology, and sociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, mates, for prestige, recognition, awards, or group or social status, for leadership. Competition is the opposite of cooperation.It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition

therefore, anyone playing for fun is having fun by (at least) trying to win. There is no such thing as "non-competitive" wargaming - it would be a contradictio in adiecto.

I think you make a very good point with that last statement. If two players come to the table, set up terrain, deploy armies and attempt to fulfil the victory conditions of a scenario, they are competing in a wargame, no matter how friendly the banter, no matter how wel painted the armies, no matter how tasty the snacks are.

Once you have two people that come to a table, set up terrain to represent a specific event that they have agreed upon, deploy the armies that have mutually agreed fit the specific event, and move them around the table to simulate the events that they have agreed to play out, they are no longer wargaming. They may be having a great time, they may have wonderfully painted armies, they may have tasty snacks, but they aren't playing the same game as the folks in the first example.

Except the second scenario means that there is a way to play 40K without being competitive. Which runs contrary to Nehekhare's extreme belief that this is a wargame, only a wargame and nothing but a wargame and if you put a model on the table, you are playing to win by any means necessary.

But are you really playing 40k when you are specifically not competing? I think that there are a near-infinite number of ways to enjoy one's models, and playing a game of 40k is just one of them, but when you play the game, you are competing.

Also, I double-checked, and I don't see "by any means necessary" in Nehekhare's post, which is one reason why I liked the point he made - he didn't resort to hot-button words.

Let me ask this:

If you are playing non-competetive 40K, what do you call the other people playing? How do you react to them and their units?

I think we all play to win when we place our models at the table, at least we try to win. We may not place the best stuff on the table, but I cant imagine people moving their models around on the table top with anything other than a tactic in mind.

Example. I play with a local gaming group (Chantilly Gamers Legion) and they are SUPER casual. When I am playing any one of them I bring some pretty poor lists (not that any CSM list is considered poor in a tournament setting ). Literally I will have three units of two Mutilators each, or two Forgefiends, or sixteen man unit of CSMs with Mark of Khorne+BP/CC/Bolter and Icon of Wrath, or a walking Daemon Prince, or Terminators, or whatever I feel like playing with.

That said, the moment I put my models on the table I am playing to make a game of it. I do not care if I win or lose, but I cannot imagine someone playing a game who is not moving their models to give themselves a tactical advantage. In this sense I have to agree, when we are at a table and moving our stuff we are playing to win the game. May not really care if you win or lose, but you are trying to win. I think that is more the point that Nehekhare is trying to impress on us, and it is one I find pretty much spot on.

That however does not mean that there are not people who just play to do whatever, but the vast vast majority play to win that individual game, even if they do not care if they win or lose.

I'm glad to hear that you have a fun place to do 40k

I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of playing to win, but not caring whether you win or lose. I suspect that you are a happier person than I am for having that ability

Let me just go on record as saying that even though I'm not sure I understand the mindset, I'm not saying it's wrong.

lol trying to find a way to explain it a bit. Kinda hard.

I do the best I can and let the pieces fall where they may, I laugh, I drink, I eat, and we crack jokes. Behind all of that I am playing to win, I make the moves I would make in a tournament. No pulled punches when I play.

I however am a benevolent soul and often let tons of stuff go, even in tournaments. The last RTT I was on table one in our last game and I started to take over the game I was in and made a critical mistake, I did not cast Invisibility on a unit that probably needed it, I went for a bigger play with a different power an it back fired for me (lost probably 8 more Hounds than I probably would have lost). Later in the match my opponent tried to cast Puppet Master on a Heldrake and did not hit cause it was flying. He apparently did not realize that it was a shooting attack and tried to assault my Hounds (this is his turn right after I did not invis them), when I let him know he could not assault because a guy in the unit shot at my Heldrake he was shocked. The Judge was there and basically looked at him like he was an idiot and then I told him he could just ignore the fact that he shot at my flyer and make his assualt.

This probably cost me the game as I pretty lost the entire unit on his charge (beast-star). With invis they could hang, without invis they could not, such is life :P

[minigun762]

Playing for fun vs winning is simple for me.

I'd rather lose a good tough fought game then table a newcomer on turn 2.

 

Of course I'd rather win that hard fought game, if I had my way.

[the jeske]

Except the second scenario means that there is a way to play 40K without being competitive. Which runs contrary to Nehekhare's extreme belief that this is a wargame, only a wargame and nothing but a wargame and if you put a model on the table, you are playing to win by any means necessary.

It had wargame in its name for more then 20 years. GW may have changed it when they stoped selling games and started selling a hobby , but that changes little about what w40k is.

 

 

 

 

Because GW don't play test their stuff properly before the release it

'into the wild' they tend to miss about as often as they hit tbh. New

units are not always better than the old ones.

That is not even the core problem . Imagine they did over the top rules for all armies . Everything is op[or everything is ultra bad] , ergo nothing is OP[or ultra bad] . The problem is that they are able to write a codex for eldar and for chaos using the same person and come up with two books that make one feel as if they were writen for two different editions.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel obliged to once again attest to the fact that by the very definition of "competition", it is impossible to not play 40k (or any wargame) competitively.

 

Competition in biology, ecology, and sociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, mates, for prestige, recognition, awards, or group or social status, for leadership. Competition is the opposite of cooperation.It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition

 

therefore, anyone playing for fun is having fun by (at least) trying to win. There is no such thing as "non-competitive" wargaming - it would be a contradictio in adiecto.

I think you make a very good point with that last statement. If two players come to the table, set up terrain, deploy armies and attempt to fulfil the victory conditions of a scenario, they are competing in a wargame, no matter how friendly the banter, no matter how wel painted the armies, no matter how tasty the snacks are.

 

Once you have two people that come to a table, set up terrain to represent a specific event that they have agreed upon, deploy the armies that have mutually agreed fit the specific event, and move them around the table to simulate the events that they have agreed to play out, they are no longer wargaming. They may be having a great time, they may have wonderfully painted armies, they may have tasty snacks, but they aren't playing the same game as the folks in the first example.

 

 

Except the second scenario means that there is a way to play 40K without being competitive. Which runs contrary to Nehekhare's extreme belief that this is a wargame, only a wargame and nothing but a wargame and if you put a model on the table, you are playing to win by any means necessary.

 

 

But are you really playing 40k when you are specifically not competing? I think that there are a near-infinite number of ways to enjoy one's models, and playing a game of 40k is just one of them, but when you play the game, you are competing.

 

Also, I double-checked, and I don't see "by any means necessary" in Nehekhare's post, which is one reason why I liked the point he made - he didn't resort to hot-button words.

 

Let me ask this:

If you are playing non-competetive 40K, what do you call the other people playing? How do you react to them and their units?

 

 

What do I think? I think that what I think doesn't matter to the community. These groups, factions, whatever you want to call them, are self-defined by the community. "Casual". Competitive. WAAC. These aren't terms that only one or two people have. Each one is widespread enough that no matter where you go in the 40K community, you can find them. No matter where you go, there is at least one person who believes in a game where winning is a secondary condition. Making a story or just having a good challenge is the goal instead with winning being a bonus rather than a necessity. So what I think, really doesn't matter since it will exist whether I think it or not.

[the jeske]

Well but the fact is this is a table top wargame, It doesn't matter how or why one plays it or where someone finds[or doesn't find] fun in it.

 

A game in its very nature has competition build in , even if one plays against oneself [in fact those games are the hardest most of the time].

[Hellios]

I knowingly make choices that I know will very likely lose the game for me, I play games where my opponent has a significant points advantage. Do I want to win? Yeah... but would I rather have a cool and awesome game? Yes.

 

So, I disagree with the idea that 40K has to be competitive. Maybe in deed, but not in spirit.

[the jeske]

Hey I play  not to win too [although that doesn't happen that offten]. For example when a team members needs one win to get higher for example.

[Dam13n]

I like the competition.  I hope my opponent will try and out-think and out-play me.  I hope for my opponent to have a strategic and tactical approach to the game.

 

Usually the cheesiness of the list just interferes with this.  If I'm running something cheesy and smash my opponent regardless of tactical skill, that's no fun.  If he's running something cheesy and it doesn't matter how well I play, he still smashes me, that's no fun either.

 

What I like therefore is a balanced game, where both players take lists that are well thought out and designed to be fun both to play with and play against.

 

I actually fished my Iron Warriors out of the hole they've been hiding in for the last 4 months yesterday, dusted them off and gave my list a refresh.  I then had a really fun game against a very sporting Ultramarines player, who was running what I would describe as a Tactical Detachment.  I managed to win 5-3 when we had to call the game, and as I decided to just have a laugh and play aggressively it was an enjoyable game regardless of the result.  I actually aimed to get into melee (something I usually avoid) and shouting "Fight Me Weakling!" made me smile (and my opponent chuckle) when I laid out my challenges.  Though my rolls on the Boon Table started every time with a 1, so unworthy offerings all round, but I just didn't care.

 

I did do quite a lot of killing, and possibly could have achieved a table if we hadn't run out of time.  My opponent called my (actually pretty casual) list "scary" after the game which to me is a compliment, as it speaks more of my play-style than my list and that's what I'm personally proud of.

 

There is another player in my area who's a lovely guy and really friendly but his grasp of tactics is so woeful that he's no challenge to play, which also means he no fun to play.  It's like kicking a puppy - cruel and guilt-ridden - and that's no fun.

 

For me it's the happy-medium of a friendly opponent and a good list played well that make for the most enjoyable games.  ToS sounds like it may offer this.  There's no way I can make the March one, but September... if we see some more new chaos models soon and I go painting-mental getting them table-worthy... why not.

 

They probably won't be Iron Warriors, I've seen enough gunmetal to last me a while.  (Plus that Blue-Purple Helbrute looks pretty cool colour scheme wise).

[Nehekhare]

non-competetive 40K

 

yes, I am absolutely sure this exists: FFG's 40k RPGs for example, where players cooperate to achieve common goals.

 

But the tabletop wargame "warhammer 40.000"? contested mission objectives. competition. exclusively. And that is the fun about that. Yes, you may play to loose, but how much fun will that be for your enemy once he knows?

 

I do not consider the re-enacting of fluff as playing 40k. Games are defined by their rules, but you don't need those for a narrative (often enough, propabilities prove those the be in fact a hindrance), neither for painting miniatures. Doesn't mean one can't benefit from the other, though.

 

As for those categories (WAAC, etc.): better get them out of your head. Once accepted, you will see everything throught that lense. That everyone's doing it doesn't proove anything but the fact that it's an easy way to make you feel better about your own shortcomings. 

[Deadman Wade]

I'm a very casual player, and most of my games are story-based campaigns, where players agree on what list they will bring and what scenario it's going to be. For me this is what I think Warhammer 40000 should be - custom scenarios and fluff-based armies, full 10-man tactical squads, SM captains with chainswords and bolters, warbosses with big choppas, Chaos Lords with lightning claws, eldar without serpent spam and tau allies. And no heldrakes or other models made by demented junkie-sculptor during his acid trip.

I play at tournaments too, but I never build "optimised" armies, I just take better painted models and hope to face some new armies and meet new players.

As for "cheesy list", when someone brings an army with something like riptide+Coteaz+a bunch of SM centurions or Daemons with 2++ rerollable save for games in my local gaming club, I say "**** you" and point at the door, since we don't need this **** in our games. When I face those lists at tournaments, I just concede without plaiying, there's nothing fun or interesting in playing against abominations which are allowed by current Allies system and against units I want to unsee (Heldrake, Riptide, Wraithknight, Centurions e.t.c.).

So while I think that dividing not that big Warhammer community isn't the best thing, I prefer to be as far as possible from those who think that it's fine to use 3 heldrakes, 2x10 cultists, Daemon Prince and some necron allies.

[Smurfalypse]

I'm a very casual player, and most of my games are story-based campaigns, where players agree on what list they will bring and what scenario it's going to be. For me this is what I think Warhammer 40000 should be - custom scenarios and fluff-based armies, full 10-man tactical squads, SM captains with chainswords and bolters, warbosses with big choppas, Chaos Lords with lightning claws, eldar without serpent spam and tau allies. And no heldrakes or other models made by demented junkie-sculptor during his acid trip.

I play at tournaments too, but I never build "optimised" armies, I just take better painted models and hope to face some new armies and meet new players.

As for "cheesy list", when someone brings an army with something like riptide+Coteaz+a bunch of SM centurions or Daemons with 2++ rerollable save for games in my local gaming club, I say "**** you" and point at the door, since we don't need this **** in our games. When I face those lists at tournaments, I just concede without plaiying, there's nothing fun or interesting in playing against abominations which are allowed by current Allies system and against units I want to unsee (Heldrake, Riptide, Wraithknight, Centurions e.t.c.).

So while I think that dividing not that big Warhammer community isn't the best thing, I prefer to be as far as possible from those who think that it's fine to use 3 heldrakes, 2x10 cultists, Daemon Prince and some necron allies.

 

Interesting, a fair amount of the stuff you listed is considered to be not that good in the tourney scene.

Also, I guess you own the store so you can just throw people out? You sound like a fun dude to play with, play your way and with what you want or hit the highway. . . Fun times :P

[Nehekhare]

fluff-based

 

people keep using that word to justify practically everything so in the end it means absolutely nothing.

 

Necron Void-drake and the Thallax-Battlesuits of Magos Coteaz look down on your narrow interpretation of the codex fluffiensis.

[Deadman Wade]

Interesting, a fair amount of the stuff you listed is considered to be not that good in the tourney scene.

Also, I guess you own the store so you can just throw people out? You sound like a fun dude to play with, play your way and with what you want or hit the highway. . . Fun times

Well, we have lots of bad expirience with WAAC players who bring whatever flavour-of-the-month netlist they find and start hysterically screaming when things don't go the way they wanted, so if they want to take those lists against casual players (we have a bunch of newcomers with armies made of DV set and a few additional units) no matter what, nobody's going to play against them. Our club is small, but we share same view on this topic.

I'm not against "sporthammer" players, but they play a different game, and I prefer playing 40k another way, and if we meet, nobody's going to have any fun.

fluff-based

people keep using that word to justify practically everything so in the end it means absolutely nothing.

Necron Void-drake and the Thallax-Battlesuits of Magos Coteaz look down on your narrow interpretation of the codex fluffiensis.

One thing is to build an army to represent AM, and another is just to take all overpowered units you can fit in one list.

[Ammonius]

 

non-competetive 40K

 

yes, I am absolutely sure this exists: FFG's 40k RPGs for example, where players cooperate to achieve common goals.

 

But the tabletop wargame "warhammer 40.000"? contested mission objectives. competition. exclusively. And that is the fun about that. Yes, you may play to loose, but how much fun will that be for your enemy once he knows?

 

I do not consider the re-enacting of fluff as playing 40k. Games are defined by their rules, but you don't need those for a narrative (often enough, propabilities prove those the be in fact a hindrance), neither for painting miniatures. Doesn't mean one can't benefit from the other, though.

 

As for those categories (WAAC, etc.): better get them out of your head. Once accepted, you will see everything throught that lense. That everyone's doing it doesn't proove anything but the fact that it's an easy way to make you feel better about your own shortcomings. 

Yep, I agree.

 

Just as an aside though, the Black Crusade campaign I run does get pretty competetive among the players, but that's not really what we're talking about :)

[Hellios]

I use 40K as a method of meditation for my Zen Buddhism.

[Nehekhare]

One thing is to build an army to represent AM, and another is just to take all overpowered units you can fit in one list.

no, in these specific cases it is actually the same thing, which was the point.

I for one consider those lists that are effective AND tell an awesome story AND look great on the table to be better armies than those that fullfill only one of these criteria. Not to mention that each of these depends on my personal and very subjective taste.

But then again, I am no FAAC-player, as you would say.

[Deadman Wade]

One thing is to build an army to represent AM, and another is just to take all overpowered units you can fit in one list.

no, in these specific cases it is actually the same thing, which was the point.

I for one consider those lists that are effective AND tell an awesome story AND look great on the table to be better armies than those that fullfill only one of these criteria. Not to mention that each of these depends on my personal and very subjective taste.

But then again, I am no FAAC-player, as you would say.

No, it's not the same thing. I'm always glad to see well-painted and converted army which has unique look and theme, maybe I'll play against it even if there are tau with inquisition. But I've yet to see such armies, so far It's just regular Coteaz, Tigurius, riptides and centurions.

[Wayniac]

Personally I refuse to use special characters, allies and forfications because they don't fit into "my" idea.  Special characters should be special, not trotted out every game (and when you have crap like needing the Khan to take Bikers as Troops, it's bad design; Bikes as Troops should be a default option).  Allies are broken and are just used to fill gaps, not really have a fluffy force, and fortifications never made sense as something you can take in your army, especially if you are an attacking force.

[Kol Saresk]

The "boundaries" become an issue because at the extremes of all four groups, there is always someone who believes their way is the only right way to view the game. For example, "This is a war game. Its only about winning. The story is for the books."

One thing is to build an army to represent AM, and another is just to take all overpowered units you can fit in one list.

no, in these specific cases it is actually the same thing, which was the point.

I for one consider those lists that are effective AND tell an awesome story AND look great on the table to be better armies than those that fullfill only one of these criteria. Not to mention that each of these depends on my personal and very subjective taste.

But then again, I am no FAAC-player, as you would say.

No, it's not the same thing. I'm always glad to see well-painted and converted army which has unique look and theme, maybe I'll play against it even if there are tau with inquisition. But I've yet to see such armies, so far It's just regular Coteaz, Tigurius, riptides and centurions.

Deadman, that is just one of the extremes I was talking about. One way is the only way. As for the reality, well the community believes otherwise and who am I to say if the community is right or wrong?