Deadman Wade Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I'm not saying playing the other way is wrong. We play it our way - campaigns, story-based scenarios or regular battles, where both players agree on what to take and what not to take, and I won't have any fun playing against army consisting of models put together via badly implemented allies system. Maybe my opponent would be glad to rofl-stomp my army, but that's just not the way I want to spend a couple of hours in my weekend. And surely I won't buy models just to win against optimised net-lists. So I think that competitive players should play with each other, "fluff bunnies" - against other "fluff bunnies". Dividing small Warhammer community? Yes, maybe, but in this case everybody wins IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I'm not saying playing the other way is wrong. We play it our way - campaigns, story-based scenarios or regular battles, where both players agree on what to take and what no to take, and I won't play against some guy who buys models just because they are considered overpowered. I won't have any fun playing against army consisting of models put together via badly implemented allies system, it's just not the way I want to spend a couple of hours in my weekend. So I think that competitive players should play with each other, "fluff bunnies" - against other "fluff bunnies". Dividing small Warhammer community? Yes, maybe, but in this case everybody wins IMO. Neither am I. But as I replied to Ammonius, the community has decided that the groups within the community known as "casual" and "competitive" should exist. However, within each group, there are extremists, such as Nehekhare(going by his posts), who believe there is only one way to play the game. In his case, competitively. Now, I am not saying his view is right or wrong. After all, it is an opinion. It is an opinion that disagrees with the community, but that is a different discussion. And maybe it would be better if the competitive stuck with the competitive and the "fluffbunnies" stuck with the "fluffbunnies". But that is exactly why such a divide exists between competitive and casual. Why there is a need to point out the extremists of WAAC and "fluffbunnies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Heh, maybe if I could find a club like Wade's maybe I would actually play my Chaos again. I refuse to use Heldrakes and Dinobots on principle and without them the army isn't very workable. And I agree completely with his attitude, 40k to me is just for a bit of fun and a nerdy fluff diversion, sure you play to win but you don't get too upset if you don't and it would be nice to play actual unmarked chaos marines and not just get wiped off the board. Le sigh. Maybe I should just play fantasy, at least there are no ally rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Heh, maybe if I could find a club like Wade's maybe I would actually play my Chaos again. I refuse to use Heldrakes and Dinobots on principle and without them the army isn't very workable. And I agree completely with his attitude, 40k to me is just for a bit of fun and a nerdy fluff diversion, sure you play to win but you don't get too upset if you don't and it would be nice to play actual unmarked chaos marines and not just get wiped off the board. Le sigh. Maybe I should just play fantasy, at least there are no ally rules. Ironically the ongoing rumor I've heard is the new version of Fantasy *will* have allies... On topic I wish that things were more balanced to where it's not better to just use a loyalist SM army if you don't want to take the daemonic stuff. I was reading the Crusade of Fire campaign book and Matt Hutson's Red Corsairs army has some line about being very much like a regular SM army, no daemons or the like, because it's a recent renegade group. Neat idea but I was thinking to myself then why bother using the Chaos rules, when all you're getting is weaker units, if you aren't taking any of the things that make Chaos, well, Chaos. If there's one thing that makes me NOT want to consider a Chaos army again, it would have to be that. I like how some daemon engines look (Mauler/Forgefiend, Heldrake) but I like the bulk of the force to be regular old unmarked CSM because that's how I imagine an army to look, and it pains me to know that I'm hindering myself by actually having a true-to-form army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Yep. I really like the idea of a force of evil marines, I don't want cultists and demon engines and whatnot, I want evil marines. Actually Red Corsairs make little to no sense with the Chaos codex, they've been Chaos for what? Like 40 years by 999.M41? That's basically last Tuesday by Chaos standards, plus the Astral Claws were actually a pretty well equipped chapter, being stewards of the Malestrom are and all that so it makes sense that they would have Landspeeders, LR variants, (now) Centurions, etc. On the other hand it doesn't make so much sense that they would have Heldrakes which take a while to mutate from Hell Talons or whatever figther they mutate from. This is if they ever even had Chaos fighters to begin with as they haven't had that much time to make pacts with the Dark Mechanicus etc. Honestly I think a FW Tyrant's Legion list is still the best at representing even post Chaos corruption Red Corsairs and is what I would use if I played a RC army, especially as it represents a mix of Astartes and human forces which meshes well with the millieu of renegade Space Marines and various pirates in the Maelstrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I dont think any army gets buy with its main troop, thats one of our biggest issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Well it's not just that per se. I mean all of our actual marine units are pretty lackluster. Our terminators aren't very good at CC, our lords aren't either except for axe juggerlord, chosen are far worse than sternguard, we have no drop pods to deliver squads, probably our only properly functional marine unit is havocs, though they aren't really better than loyalist options except for I guess the autocannon thing which isn't quite as useful now that rhino/razorback spam isn't such a thing. Instead our advantages/unique things come purely in the form of silly demonic dragons and dino-centaurs and other stuff that would only fit in a really demonic type army, but not a traitor marine list per se. Edit: Oh and obliterators of course, though now that loyalists have Centurions--ugh. Beep that beeping beep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nehekhare Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 extremists, such as Nehekhare(going by his posts), who believe there is only one way to play the game. what the :cuss, man? why do you hate the truth so much? 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. 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. what i am indeed saying is that you use the word "competitively" wrong when you a ) say it doesn't apply to 40k while b ) acknowledging that 40k is a game where 2 players compete for objectives that cannot be shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 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. I agree with what you have to say about the lists, a list that is all three is great, and that is what makes me sad. I wish more lists were all three. I don't want to see everyone run one of a few lists that are all three; I want to see more lists that are effective, tell an awesome story, and look great... Alas, the effective bit really means that GW has to put some effort in, which isn't going to happen. I still disagree with 40K needing to be a competitive game. Sure, the rules are written in such a way that two players are facing off against each other, but the players themselves are an important element. Not all players are really trying to win, 40K is just something to do while drinking and chatting with your friends. X will win me the game, but I'm going to do Y because it will be more fun. This is why I really want better rules, more balanced rules; with an improved set of rules the gap between competitive, and fluffy players would be smaller: fluffy players' lists would be more competitive, and competitive players would have more choices (although there will always be a few 'top meta lists') to play with what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minigun762 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Just a reminder to everyone. Be respectful, be patient and don't assume that the person you are having this discussion with is not a terrible person who hates everything about you and thinks your puppy/kitty/fishy/trained squirrel is ugly and stupid looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurfalypse Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 Just a reminder to everyone. Be respectful, be patient and don't assume that the person you are having this discussion with is not a terrible person who hates everything about you and thinks your puppy/kitty/fishy/trained squirrel is ugly and stupid looking. You cant tell me what to do, you're not my real dad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minigun762 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Just a reminder to everyone. Be respectful, be patient and don't assume that the person you are having this discussion with is not a terrible person who hates everything about you and thinks your puppy/kitty/fishy/trained squirrel is ugly and stupid looking. You cant tell me what to do, you're not my real dad! Don't make me send you to the corner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Just a reminder to everyone. Be respectful, be patient and don't assume that the person you are having this discussion with is not a terrible person who hates everything about you and thinks your puppy/kitty/fishy/trained squirrel is ugly and stupid looking. You cant tell me what to do, you're not my real dad! Don't make me send you to the corner! We're in the Eye of Terror, I think that's worse than the corner Somewhat back on topic, I think there has to be a middle ground. Not WAAC competitive but not so woefully underpowerd that you'll lose every game just because of what you're playing. Chaos might not be ultra competitive without the typical spam lists, but I've read that it's possible to have a fun and still decent list without going all-out and still staying true to the fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Well there is a problem with defining what possible means and what fun means. For example if someones idea of fun , is to see friends and spend time with them [gaming being just a bonus or even a chore] , then yeah probably yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 I think the problem is that a lot of people don't see how blurry waac and competitive are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboarder Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 or a lot of people think competitive means something it doesn't. honestly I run into more WAAC players in weekly pick up games than I do when playing and practicing with my tournament mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 or a lot of people think competitive means something it doesn't. honestly I run into more WAAC players in weekly pick up games than I do when playing and practicing with my tournament mates. True, but WAAC players are normally competitive (although, they are not always good), and that is where the association comes from. Also, most people won't even know if the random pick up game guy goes to events or not, and they themselves probably won't go to events (at least not biggish events). So their view gets coloured that way. As a few of us have said before, most players are not that different, there is just a small difference in focus... But there are always 'bad' people, most commonly seen in 40K as the 'WAAC player'... That being said I'm sure there is some kind of 'Fluff Nazi' out there? Anyone got any stories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.