Grey Knights: Know Thy Foe

[Zhukov]

I hope you don't mind me jumping in a few points which I find interesting to say something about, while also wondering what others think about it.

 

'WAAC' is a term invented by losers. By definition, we all wish to win the game we play. No one desires defeat (and anyone who says they don't care about that is lying).

I dislike the term WAAC as well, it's an obsolute and unnecessarily offensive term. It tries to make playing to win seem like a bad thing, while it is neither good nor bad.

 

That being said: Saying that we all wish to win the game is not so much incorrect as it is incomplete. Why? Because the degree to which people play to win differs enormously!

-Do you buy a new army when it gives you a better chance of winning than the one(s) you currently play?

-Do you have any preference for particular armies and wont play certain armies even though those might be stronger?

-Do you always play with a list which is according to you the strongest possible?

-Is strenght of a list the only motivation for you when you design one?

-Do you practise as much as possible including against ever stronger opposition in order to get better?

-Do you travel around the country or even world in order to play and win tournaments to try and actually win?

 

Most people do not do the above. Me? Neither, I am not a purely competitive player either, very few people are. Saying nobody desires defeat is also wrong or at least redundant. I desire defeat often more than victory. Defeat means somebody won against me, which motivates me to get better and improve my play or list. Winning all the time is boring. According to your words this makes me a liar.

 

But okay, let's assume for the sake of ease that nobody desires defeat. Has it occurred to you that you can neither desire victory nor defeat? Many people have the desire to play with their models on a table against eachother and care very little about the outcome of a game. Yes, even though the rules of the game are generally made to designate a winner in the end, a lot of people hardly bother with it. Many things are many times more important for them than the outcome of the game, the rules are there just to give the whole thing some structure, preventing it from becoming too random. People sometimes don't even finish games so there is no winner at all! Apparantly winning isn't so important as you make it seem to be.

 

By definition we all play to win a game, because it is part of the rules of (each and every?) a game. We don't all necessarily wish or desire to win equally though I believe.

 

What can be discussed is what happens at the competitive end of the game.

 

Comp is the cancer that is killing the competitive scene.

 

As I mentioned earlier, your local meta is just that. It's not relevant to anyone else except you. Thus, it's better to talk about broader trends and objective meta as it applies to all 40k.

 

It's fine if people want to pretend tournaments don't exist, or even ignore the existence of entire factions or combos. That's their prerogative. But it doesn't make their opinions relevant to anyone else outside their small pool. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least acknowledge that 40k is bigger than the games you play.

There is no 1 type of 40k which applies to everybody. This isn't chess where only a few local clubs play a slightly altered version of it. This is a game where there is not even a general consensus on rules for army composition! Mission packs and terrain also globally vary enormously and have a huge impact on which kind of list works and which doesn't.

 

Meanwhile you speak about the 'competitive end of the game', 'broader trends' and 'objective meta' (I genuinely laughed at this last term)

 

Who are you to say local metas cannot be discussed? They can, as long as one does not try to apply conclusions to everybody and everything.

 

No meta applies to whole 40k and therefore one can't discuss anything according to you!

 

But we can! The focus however shouldn't be on reaching definite conclusions all the time! The goal should not be to win a discussion either, but to learn and share things!

 

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least acknowledge that 40k is bigger than the few tournaments you follow from a distance. Comped tournaments by the way.

 

[Gentlemanloser]

But okay, let's assume for the sake of ease that nobody desires defeat. Has it occurred to you that you can neither desire victory nor defeat? Many people have the desire to play with their models on a table against eachother and care very little about the outcome of a game. Yes, even though the rules of the game are generally made to designate a winner in the end, a lot of people hardly bother with it. Many things are many times more important for them than the outcome of the game, the rules are there just to give the whole thing some structure, preventing it from becoming too random. People sometimes don't even finish games so there is no winner at all! Apparantly winning isn't so important as you make it seem to be.

I'd say there's a difference between using 40k as a method to reinact lore, and playing the game as it has been designed. You can do both, but only one of them is having a game of 40k.

I'd also claim you cannot 'play' a game of 40k without the desire to win, and that if you do you are shortchanging your opponent, by largely ignoring the rules and design of the game you're playing, and lessening it for them. Pusing tokens around a table might be an enjoyable passtime, but it's not a 'game'.

And if both players aren't trying to win, then both aren't really playing 40k the game, and are using it for something else. Maybe a way to showcase thier painting and converting skills. Of which an epic diorama could do just as well (if not better).

I dislike the term WAAC as well, it's an obsolute and unnecessarily offensive term. It tries to make playing to win seem like a bad thing, while it is neither good nor bad.

So much this. :)

[Zhukov]

I'd say there's a difference between using 40k as a method to reinact lore, and playing the game as it has been designed. You can do both, but only one of them is having a game of 40k.

I'd also claim you cannot 'play' a game of 40k without the desire to win, and that if you do you are shortchanging your opponent, by largely ignoring the rules and design of the game you're playing, and lessening it for them. Pusing tokens around a table might be an enjoyable passtime, but it's not a 'game'.

And if both players aren't trying to win, then both aren't really playing 40k the game, and are using it for something else. Maybe a way to showcase thier painting and converting skills. Of which an epic diorama could do just as well (if not better).

I actually agree! I merely tried to point out that there exists a huge gap between the 2 end of the spectrums: Purely playing to win on the 1 hand, which almost nobody does and "a method to reinact lore" as you name it on the other hand. "Everybody plays to win" is just something which I feel cannot be used to justify only talking about a very specific part of the playing field. What works on the top level and what works below differs a lot and almost nobody plays against the particular top lists and the players behind it!

To give an example of it: Many people used to trouble greatly with Nob Bikers and Fatecrusher at some point, people made a ton of post about it on forums! Should those people have been told it is useless to discuss it because at the competitive end of the spectrum, people hardly troubled with it? It's the same now with Decurion to some extent: It gives much more troubles to people below the competitive end of the spectrum!

[Aethernitas]

'WAAC' is a term invented by losers. By definition, we all wish to win the game we play. No one desires defeat (and anyone who says they don't care about that is lying).

I dislike the term WAAC as well, it's an obsolute and unnecessarily offensive term. It tries to make playing to win seem like a bad thing, while it is neither good nor bad.

That being said: Saying that we all wish to win the game is not so much incorrect as it is incomplete. Why? Because the degree to which people play to win differs enormously!

-Do you buy a new army when it gives you a better chance of winning than the one(s) you currently play?

-Do you have any preference for particular armies and wont play certain armies even though those might be stronger?

-Do you always play with a list which is according to you the strongest possible?

-Is strenght of a list the only motivation for you when you design one?

-Do you practise as much as possible including against ever stronger opposition in order to get better?

-Do you travel around the country or even world in order to play and win tournaments to try and actually win?

I would never argue that anyone truly longs for loosing. Everybody likes to win except in a few cases like the very rare exceptions when a curious female stumbles into you gamestore and you loose on purpose just to provide a better experience

For me there is still a clear difference between beeing competitive, even at the top end, and beeing a WAAC player. Reason beeing that imo competitivness is totally disconnected from WAAC.

I would say I am competitive - I know my rules, I read up on a plethora of online sources to be up to date, I'm informed about recent tournement results, I watch batreps, spent lots of time brooding over my lists to improve them, test them and I enjoy post-game discussions with my opponents. Now if on top of that my lists would be pure cheese and I would absolutely abhor loosing would that then make me a WAAC player? I don't think so because there would still be reasons to keep myself in check - making it too costly for me to really win at all costs.

Things like

- the love for the fluff and the aversion for lists that make no sense fluffwise

- making an effort to be a polite and enjoyable person to play against

- not curbstomping everyone with cheese to scare them off because one can't play the game without opponents

ensure that I will never tread in WAAC territory.

That beeing said I've had my share of experiences with folks that had less such reservations. People that had the abilities of an defense attorney to find loopholes in rules, twist them till they were unrecognizable or actually summon them out of thin air if it was to their advantage. I've heard people argue about the physics of laser pointers when their deathstar was in danger of beeing shot at. Others use sheer ignorance and thickheadedness to withstand any attempt of reason if it means that they don't have to a gree to a rule that may affect them in a negative way. Now those people may also play a extremely competitive list copied from one of the most recent tourney but they may also play some monstrosity that registers as competitive only in their own minds.

My point beeing - WAAC players don't have to be actually competitive or even good at the game. They are not defined by copying cheesy tourney lists and they may not even understand some of the more basic rules of the game. They just have to have a longing to win far beyond anyone else in their local meta or gaming group, alienating themselves in the process.

[Renzo]

=/=

Haha thanks, I'll go back and edit now.

Pure LotD trumps Dual SS Warrior Accolytes with a single Servitor. It's like the old Chaos Marine Daemon Bomb with no Icon list.

Excet you have zero units on board. Ever.

I guess. But in terms of armies that actually put something on the board, Servitor Spam is still superior.

Nope. Not considering that. Why bother? You bring comp into it and I claim that Edlar are crap, becuase obviously you can't use a Wraithknight/Avatar/Warp Spiders/Wraithguard with a WWP.

Becuase comp.

Nope. Even assuming Warhost is banned, there is not a single tourney that doesn't have at least two sources. Also, no tourneys I'm aware of ban Allies. Eldar can do WWP+Wraithflamers with a CAD and an Allied DE detachment.

Anyone who still thinks GK are a mono-build army need to read this thread. Just say'n.

Depends on what you want that build to do. I still think 6x DK is our only real competitive hope, if we're talking pure lists. Once you bring Allies, things of course change (Purifiers get drop pods to fix their mobility issues, Draigo can team up with Centurions etc etc).

The thing is we have to keep in mind we're talking about a LOT of players here guys, not just the 1% playing WAAC lists. There are guys just playing Grey Knights, There are guys who never go to tournaments.... a lot of groups acknowledge, but don't have crazy allies running around, some don't even use Super Heavies.

'WAAC' is a term invented by losers. By definition, we all wish to win the game we play. No one desires defeat (and anyone who says they don't care about that is lying). Another point to make is that because everyone's meta game is slightly different, we can't really discuss narrow individual cases. Because they simply won't apply to anyone else. What can be discussed is what happens at the competitive end of the game. The things happening there impact everyone elses meta. Maybe no one brings Lords of War locally. So what? All it takes is one guy to start playing Knight-Titans, or bring a Forge World model or two, and suddenly your meta assumptions are blown out of the water. Forewarned is forearmed.

We hear and read about the LVO style lists, and I completely agree that it's hard to tell what half of those armies are supposed to be. But personally, I find that incredibly boring. At that point, you're not playing an army, you're playing a few models, repeated as often as possible. And it's a minor group representing a much larger group that's trying to understand how best to use GK.

I disagree. LVO is just one tourney, there are plenty others (local and national) which have their own unique restrictions and meta. We've also seen some pretty weird developments lately (Lictorshame, those bizarre Marine lists, Tau falling off somewhat). It's always changing. Thus, it pays to keep pace with new developments. Because there is largely nothing stopping your local opponents taking competitive builds or units. Eldar and Necrons will probably start showing their impact soon, and we have yet to see what that will mean.

I use pure GK more than I ally. A lot more. When I go to a local store, I'd say less than 25% of armie are allied. And of those, probably less than 10% are running Super Heavies. Tournaments probably account for very little of the average player's playtime, and on top of that, like it or not, there are still Comp based tournamnets killing a lot of the allied goofiness.

Comp is the cancer that is killing the competitive scene. So, I wouldn't put much stock in it's future in tournaments.

As I mentioned earlier, your local meta is just that. It's not relevant to anyone else except you. Thus, it's better to talk about broader trends and objective meta as it applies to all 40k. Once you devolve into 'oh but we have no Super-Heavy units locally, or much Allies', you're losing relevance to anyone who does fight that stuff. Not to mention, if anyone starts doing those things locally, you're now outflanked by it entirely.

A lot of people see competitive 40k as broken beyond repair simply because of allies. Many of these people do not care that you can stick guardsmen in pods, and use Knights with Chaos.

Top kek. In complete repudiation of that view, the most competitive armies in 40k are pure or only use Battle-Brother Alliances at that. Also, the benefits of Allies are skewed heavily in Imperial favour. Xenos largely get by without it, or only use limited BB Allies for specific combos (WWP+Wraithflamer for example). Sure, some Allies seem absurd or in conflict with the lore. But this is 40k. You can justify just about any Alliance, even the 'Come the Apocalypse' ones, if you're creative enough. And people telling you they don't like it for lore reasons doesn't mean anything. That's just their opinion.

It's fine if people want to pretend tournaments don't exist, or even ignore the existence of entire factions or combos. That's their prerogative. But it doesn't make their opinions relevant to anyone else outside their small pool. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least acknowledge that 40k is bigger than the games you play. I sympathise, because I find it hard to keep up with every new release, dataslate, detachment, formation etc. GW have been incredibly prolific lately in giving most factions a facelift, and giving them options. Now, are all those options equally good? Nope. But one of the most consistent complaints the community had in earlier editions was 'all I have is my codex, there isn't much more I can do unless I play another army entirely'. Now, xenos are on top, and Allies mean armies have never had more potential options (especially with the change from 6th to 7th with regards to sources, ie you can take as many as you like).

The problem with discussing the "broader trends" and "objective meta" is they are near-impossible to measure. The meta in Australia is probably very different to the meta in the UK, because the 2 player bases very rarely interact, so the "trends" you mention develop independently of each other.

Take Starcraft as another example of this. That is a game which is far more balanced than 40k, with far fewer variables, yet the meta for Starcraft in Korea is completely different to that in the US, because the players rarely compete against each other and so trends and playstyles grow in near-complete isolation.

That being said, there are obviously commonalities in these trends thanks to forums like this, and Frontline Gaming's attempt to standardise the tournament scene globally should start to produce a "global meta" of sorts, but at the moment I've seen no evidence that it exists today - always happy to be proven wrong if you have some evidence though.

[Zhukov]

For me there is still a clear difference between beeing competitive, even at the top end, and beeing a WAAC player. Reason beeing that imo competitivness is totally disconnected from WAAC.

I agree when using the popular use of the term, but that's mostly because WAAC is being used to describe douchebags, while their behaviour has often little to do with actually playing to win at all costs. Is cheating winning at all costs? Not to me as when you are cheating you are not winning the game you agreed to play, you are winning a game which you made up on the spot as you are not playing within the rules of that game. Cheating for me prevents you from winning in the first place. Winning in a meaningfull way at least lol.

 

Same for being rude to your oppenent and being obnoxious regarding rules: For me that is not playing to win, at least not in the long run. How? It leads to judges being against you and it might lead to less people to practise against on your way to be the best. Worst case scenario you get flat out banned from tournaments.

 

Needless to say I don't approve of bad behaviour for moral reasons as well, but I'm not here to discuss that.

 

Either way, WAAC players as you describe are not competitive though, no. According to the definition I'm familiar with of being competitive, which is having a strong desire to compete, they are not interested in competing indeed.

 

Regarding you being competitive or not, depends. Do you play tournaments? Then you are to some extent at least I guess, although then again, not really if you are holding back with your lists... If you don't play tournaments then no sorry, you are not competitive, even though you would like to be maybe.

[Aethernitas]

 

For me there is still a clear difference between beeing competitive, even at the top end, and beeing a WAAC player. Reason beeing that imo competitivness is totally disconnected from WAAC.

I agree when using the popular use of the term, but that's mostly because WAAC is being used to describe douchebags, while their behaviour has often little to do with actually playing to win at all costs. Is cheating winning at all costs? Not to me as when you are cheating you are not winning the game you agreed to play, you are winning a game which you made up on the spot as you are not playing within the rules of that game. Cheating for me prevents you from winning in the first place. Winning in a meaningfull way at least lol.

 

Afaik it's the only use of the term and yes, douchebags would probably be a good word to describe the average WAAC player. Though even WAAC players have different thresholds as to how far they will go. What binds them together is that length they are willing to go to win are already miles beyond the bulk of the community. Some will resort to cheating because they wanna win and cheating per definition always tries to stay unnoticed. Of course they risk beeing disqualified or called out but most are perfectly fine taking that risk.

 

 

Regarding you being competitive or not, depends. Do you play tournaments? Then you are to some extent at least I guess, although then again, not really if you are holding back with your lists... If you don't play tournaments then no sorry, you are not competitive, even though you would like to be maybe.

 

Beeing competitive is in no way bound to playing in tournaments. The fact that all tournament players are competitive (let's assume) doesn't mean that all competitive players play tournaments. Don't fall for that conclusion.

 

Anyways - that wasn't even the point. I just like to extrapolate using myself as example.

[Zhukov]

 

Beeing competitive is in no way bound to playing in tournaments. The fact that all tournament players are competitive (let's assume) doesn't mean that all competitive players play tournaments. Don't fall for that conclusion.

 

Anyways - that wasn't even the point. I just like to extrapolate using myself as example.

That's okay, I find in interesting in discussing it, even though it's a bit besides the point and off-topic. If you don't want to discuss it or it's not allowed, just let me know and I'll shut up:

 

Being competitive according to definition (afaik) is having a strong desire to compete. Competing is the same as measuring yourself against others to see who is the best, is that fair to say?

 

Now, how can one claim to have a strong desire to compete, while they do not attend the places which are made for that? To me, playing to win against some friends or local players in a non organized fashion doesn't seem like somebody who has a strong desire to compete. To me the latter looks like somebody who is avoiding true competition while it readily available!

 

Holding back with lists is an even more clear example : How can you measure who is the best when you are holding back with the army you field? If your adversary wins against you, was he better or did he simply win because you avoid true competition in the first place?

[Gentlemanloser]

To give an example of it: Many people used to trouble greatly with Nob Bikers and Fatecrusher at some point, people made a ton of post about it on forums! Should those people have been told it is useless to discuss it because at the competitive end of the spectrum, people hardly troubled with it?

Or the WD updates to Flamers?

That cuased all sorts of problems, from the Tournament scence to peoples home tables.

I'd like to focus on this for a second.

GW buffed an already good unit (Flamers) into near unstopable cheese monsters (in case it's not come across, I hated these things! )

Now, why should we judge the 'player' for using them?

I know our Daemon player took three Squads of these, all the time. They were literally the best units in his Codex (and he was just about unstopable with them, unless I abused Sanctuary, in which case we never actually played that match...).

*Why* shouldn't he take them? Why should we judge him negatively if he does? You want to take the units that work, and allow you to compete in the game. No one *really* wants to play the pure LotD army and lose every single game at the end of turn 1.

But he was the grade a douchebag uber cheese beardy goit who switched his list up just to win.

Of course he switched his list up. These units got overcharged and were amazing.

Why is that his issue?

Holding back with lists is an even more clear example : How can you measure who is the best when you are holding back with the army you field? If your adversary wins against you, was he better or did he simply win because you avoid true competition in the first place?

This.

It's the reason i dislike 'comp' and everyone going "I'll not play Unbound..."

Unbound isn't cheating. It's right there as a valid option inthe rulebook. Just as much as the Shooting Phase is.

When you next play versus Tau, why don't you remove the Shooting Phase form the game and go stright from Psychic to Assult?

[Aethernitas]

Being competitive according to definition (afaik) is having a strong desire to compete. Competing is the same as measuring yourself against others to see who is the best, is that fair to say?

 

Now, how can one claim to have a strong desire to compete, while they do not attend the places which are made for that? To me, playing to win against some friends or local players in a non organized fashion doesn't seem like somebody who has a strong desire to compete. To me the latter looks like somebody who is avoiding true competition while it readily available!

 

Holding back with lists is an even more clear example : How can you measure who is the best when you are holding back with the army you field? If your adversary wins against you, was he better or did he simply win because you avoid true competition in the first place?

 

Tournaments are nothing more than formalized competition. Every single game of 40K is competitive. The only difference between local casual games, games at your LGS or a tournament are the rulesets that are applied and how you score the performances.

 

One can compete at local or even international tournaments and he may still be challenged by his local game group because even if they play toned down lists they might be very smart and highly skilled players. I actually think it's extremely healthy if the local meta doesn't painstakingly adhere to some oh-so-untouchable tournament meta because that gives even seasoned players the chance to try new things and discover new units/combos/whatsoever.

[Prot]

 

 

 

The thing is we have to keep in mind we're talking about a LOT of players here guys, not just the 1% playing WAAC lists. There are guys just playing Grey Knights, There are guys who never go to tournaments.... a lot of groups acknowledge, but don't have crazy allies running around, some don't even use Super Heavies.

 

'WAAC' is a term invented by losers. By definition, we all wish to win the game we play. No one desires defeat (and anyone who says they don't care about that is lying). Another point to make is that because everyone's meta game is slightly different, we can't really discuss narrow individual cases. Because they simply won't apply to anyone else. What can be discussed is what happens at the competitive end of the game. The things happening there impact everyone elses meta. Maybe no one brings Lords of War locally. So what? All it takes is one guy to start playing Knight-Titans, or bring a Forge World model or two, and suddenly your meta assumptions are blown out of the water. Forewarned is forearmed. 

 

 

Are you calling me a loser? That's a bit harsh don't you think? I guess what I'm saying here is we all can't be 'winners'. WAAC "by definition" means Win At All Costs. It's a factual term used to explain someone who is playing only to win.

 

If you don't know anyone that plays the game for other reasons than winning, I feel sorry for you. You're missing out on a very large part of the hobby.  And no, they are not lying. These are real people who play the game for several reasons that go beyond winning. And to correct you: they are not losers. These are fans of the hobby and aspects of the game that go way beyond saying "I win" at the end. It really is too bad this is lost on you.

 

EDIT:

The whole reason this was brought up is to realize that some players in this thread are trying to dismiss playing Grey Knights as an army. What I am saying is we should examine the match ups as if playing Grey Knights as an army because not everyone is playing the same way. The entirety of the thread should not always assume 100% of the time the player in question is taking allies in his/her list.

 

Let's keep this on topic now please.

 

 

[Gentlemanloser]

How is "All Costs" defined?

 

Does it include cheating?  Can you only be a WAAC player if you cheat?

 

Edit: More on topic is Unbound.

 

Why don't people play Unbound GK?  How awesome would an Unbound list be of only PT NDK and Interceptors.

 

A unique, fluffy and pure GK list.

 

 

 

If you don't know anyone that plays the game for other reasons than winning

 

I know a lot of guys into 40k as a hobby.  They love the minis and the painting.  They don't play the game though.

 

You can enjoy 40k, in many depths, whitout rolling a single dice.

 

But when you build your list, place it on the table, and start rolling.  Then, you're playing, and playing to win.

[Prot]

How is "All Costs" defined?

 

Does it include cheating?  Can you only be a WAAC player if you cheat?

 

Edit: More on topic is Unbound.

 

Why don't people play Unbound GK?  How awesome would an Unbound list be of only PT NDK and Interceptors.

 

A unique, fluffy and pure GK list.

 

 

 

If you don't know anyone that plays the game for other reasons than winning

 

I know a lot of guys into 40k as a hobby.  They love the minis and the painting.  They don't play the game though.

 

You can enjoy 40k, in many depths, whitout rolling a single dice.

 

But when you build your list, place it on the table, and start rolling.  Then, you're playing, and playing to win.

 

 

Playing to win is too vague. Playing ONLY to win, is VERY different.

 

I have a lot of groups of players that I interact with. This thread was meant to talk to many of them. That was the point of the thread. To give advice on which direction you should consider if you're facing a certain type of foe.... a helping hand to anyone struggling to find an upper hand, while using our codex, and whatever else they may want, or not want. But it was never meant to just cater to one type of player.

[Zhukov]

Now, why should we judge the 'player' for using them?

One should not judge people for playing within the rules when playing at a tournament no (rare exceptions there, using something strong is not an exception though)

It's the reason i dislike 'comp' and everyone going "I'll not play Unbound..."

Unbound isn't cheating. It's right there as a valid option inthe rulebook. Just as much as the Shooting Phase is.

When you next play versus Tau, why don't you remove the Shooting Phase form the game and go stright from Psychic to Assult?

Disagree, comp does not make a game uncompetitive per definition (although it could). When everybody is bound by the same rules, there is no problem. I bet the heavily comped tournaments in Australia are still competitive for example, I am pretty sure the outcome of those tournaments is still heavily influenced by skill. Whether you like comp or not is a different story all together. Nick Nanavati won Adepticon 3 times in a row for example, that clearly indicates 40k is competitive and there is a ton of additional proof for it.

Tournaments are nothing more than formalized competition. Every single game of 40K is competitive. The only difference between local casual games, games at your LGS or a tournament are the rulesets that are applied and how you score the performances.

One can compete at local or even international tournaments and he may still be challenged by his local game group because even if they play toned down lists they might be very smart and highly skilled players. I actually think it's extremely healthy if the local meta doesn't painstakingly adhere to some oh-so-untouchable tournament meta because that gives even seasoned players the chance to try new things and discover new units/combos/whatsoever.

Just because you are not competitive does not mean you cannot like to play a competitive game once in a while You certainly can! Having a strong desire is something else. No, the difference is that tournaments are made to see who is the best, they are made to measure yourself against others, in other words they are made to compete.

Assume your definition of it for a moment: If we used that, everybody who plays games would be competitive! And as every person in the world plays games in one form or the other, that would mean every person in the world is competitive! That would defeat the purpose of the word competitive would it not? I would also not call most of the people who were playing every week in my local club competitive, you would. Would you call Jeremy, who plays with 3 tactical squads and a captain with power sword against Fritz who plays with 50 Orks and a Warboss on a regular basis in his mom's basis, competive? According to you yes, because he competes with Fritz and every game of 40k is competitive.

No, that would be the same as saying everybody loves food, because everybody eats. Words are there to make a difference, if the word competitive is appliable to everybody then the word has no function. Again: Strong desire to compete! Competing in a casual setting now and then does not indicate a strong desire to me.

Edit: Sorry, typed this reply while you posted we need to go back on-topic. I will now!

[Aethernitas]

The whole reason this was brought up is to realize that some players in this thread are trying to dismiss playing Grey Knights as an army. What I am saying is we should examine the match ups as if playing Grey Knights as an army because not everyone is playing the same way. The entirety of the thread should not always assume 100% of the time the player in question is taking allies in his/her list.

Let's keep this on topic now please.

As far as I'm concerned everyone dismissing playing GKs as an army and not contributing anything else besides driving that point home should think long and hard about what they're actually doing here.

I actually think that many here play pure GKs even if it's just for the sake of it. Assuming that most players use allies in a more or less prominent role still seems like a safe bet but I'm a big advocate of variety and the cojones to experiment so I too am tired of the same cure-all solutions brought up time and time again.

Just because you are not competitive does not mean you cannot like to play a competitive game once in a while You certainly can! Having a strong desire is something else. No, the difference is that tournaments are made to see who is the best, they are made to measure yourself against others, in other words they are made to compete.

Assume your definition of it for a moment: If we used that, everybody who plays games would be competitive! And as every person in the world plays games in one form or the other, that would mean every person in the world is competitive! That would defeat the purpose of the word competitive would it not? I would also not call most of the people who were playing every week in my local club competitive, you would. Would you call Jeremy, who plays with 3 tactical squads and a captain with power sword against Fritz who plays with 50 Orks and a Warboss on a regular basis in his mom's basis, competive? According to you yes, because he competes with Fritz and every game of 40k is competitive.

No, that would be the same as saying everybody loves food, because everybody eats. Words are there to make a difference, if the word competitive is appliable to everybody then the word has no function. Again: Strong desire to compete! Competing in a casual setting now and then does not indicate a strong desire to me.

I don't really want to debate on principles but yes, every single human is competitive by nature. Oh the wonders of evolution and natural selection. Nowadays though not everybody has to compete.

That aside I use the word competitive here in the same manner as you do - to describe people that are very competitive. Like in "more competitive than most people". When I say every game of 40K is competitive than that is because it is a competition. Warhammer is a game and games are made to present a conflict of some kind. Now if you get people involved with a conflict there are two genereal ways to solve it - the competitive way and the cooperative way. 40K can in some very niche cases be played as a cooperative game (scenarios and stuff) but mostly its a competitive game.

Now can we please agree that in context of this forum competitive for us means "more competitive than most" or "very competitive"?

[Gentlemanloser]

When everybody is bound by the same rules, there is no problem.

 

Sure, everyone might be bound to the "only 1 NDK/WraithKnight/Riptide" rule, but that only effects GK/Eldar/Tau players.  The Ork player doesn't care for this rule and isn't restricted by it.

 

Now take Strike force Providence.

 

Led to the moon A'tun, Providence engages a cult dedicated the Arch Enemy in effort to stop a summoning an breach into the warp forseen by the Chapters Prognosticators.  After a hard and blood fight had ended, the Grey Knights realised the Prognosticators had been decived, as Warp Storms started to build upon the moon.  As dark sorcerer grew in power, the GK we able to pinpoint the actual point of the ritual.  Where they were had been a decoy to delay them.  With the Warp Storms grounding their Ravens, and the actual ritual site far away past impassible terrain, the only option Providence had left was to send off any Knights equipped with Personal Teleporters.

 

And even they might not make it in time...

 

Strikeforce Providence

 

Unbound: 1,835

 

NDK, PT, G Psi, H Psy (225) Warlord

Interceptor x5, Incinerator, Meltabombs (140)

Interceptor x5, Incinerator, Meltabombs (140)

Interceptor x5, Incinerator, Meltabombs (140)

Interceptor x5, Incinerator, Meltabombs (140)

Interceptor x5, Incinerator, Meltabombs (140)

Interceptor x5, Incinerator, Meltabombs (140)

NDK, PT, H Incinerator, Hammer (185)

NDK, PT, H Incinerator, Hammer (185)

NDK, PT, H Psycannon, Hammer (200)

NDK, PT, H Psycannon, Hammer (200)

 

But you can't play that.  It's Unbound...

 

 

 

Playing to win is too vague. Playing ONLY to win, is VERY different.

 

What does 'only to win' mean?  Does it include the type of person who would pysically hit thier opponent to stop them winning?  Burn the store down if they are losing?

 

Playing to win really isn't vague.  You're playing a game, and the objective of that game is to win.  There are games without winning (or victory) conditions.  But those games aren't typed as 'competitive'.

[Prot]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic, but you've created a fun scenario for sure. In that case I'd advise you talk to a buddy who plays the other side of your story (Daemons? CSM?) and arrange an unbound game with him!

 

This shows us again, how many different ways the game can be played.

 

Right now for instance, my Eldar friend does not take allies. I tell him, 'You take whatever you want'. He bring a Wraithnight and is working on a second one.

 

Me? I have personal restrictions and I want to test my ability within the codex, and what those pages give me.

 

Now as a result he is one guy I've lost to in the last month or two because of his access to D weapons, and low AP shooting, all while retaining a very large model count to protect his stuff.

 

In fact I would say aside from the Wraithknight, you might look at this guy's list and think it's kind of 'uncompetitive' and goofy. It's all over the place, he's using Aspects and guardians, with perhaps his biggest weakness being Close Combat.... but how do I engage him with all that bubble wrap? I've tried NDK's and his stuff doesn't run (fearless bubble). So he let's me kill some crud, and then re-forms with the D.

 

So far he's the only guy giving me pause for thought. It's such a strange situation though because it's not one thing... it's like his army has my number. He's not even playing super tactical.

[Zhukov]

 

Now can we please agree that in context of this forum competitive for us means "more competitive than most" or "very competitive"?

We do lol! That is precisely my point, but that means going to tournaments as well and I explained why (in my opinion, I am completely fine with agreeing to disagree).

 

 

When everybody is bound by the same rules, there is no problem.

 

Sure, everyone might be bound to the "only 1 NDK/WraithKnight/Riptide" rule, but that only effects GK/Eldar/Tau players.  The Ork player doesn't care for this rule and isn't restricted by it.

Nobody forces you to take a particular army. If you handicap yourself by taking a particular army then it is you who chooses to not be competitive.

 

I completely understand that somebody is not willing to buy a new army constantly in order to be competitive though! Whether the game is suited to for competitive play basicly is again another different matter and one of the reasons I most of the time choose not to play competitively. 

[Aethernitas]

(in my opinion, I am completely fine with agreeing to disagree).

 

Then let's do just that.

[Gentlemanloser]

Nobody forces you to take a particular army. If you handicap yourself by taking a particular army then it is you who chooses to not be competitive.

I think you've just made my point for me.

You say handicap for taking an army that's been comped. Well, it's the comp that has forced the handicap, not the players choice of what army to play. Let's not devolve this into "you can choose not to go to that tournament then".

A houserule that restricts a single army isn't something that effects all players equally. Hell, a houserule that effects even something as a phase of the game doesn't effect all armies equally.

Take implementing a houserule on warp charge generation / use. Dark Eldar ignore it, while it might cripple that phase for Daemons/Eldar/GK.

You just can't start tinkering with little bits and bobs, and expect it to be an even adjustment across the playerbase.

And then, it's usually worthless, as you've just moved the goalposts.

Whatever OP thing you restricted becomes neutered, and something else pops up to take its place...

I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic

Allies, Pure GK and source restricitons.

and arrange an unbound game with him!

Why? It could be renegade Space Marines guarding. Unwitting Eldar openening a Portal.

And besides, my choice or arranging my army is *rule book legal*.

Whay would someone deny me that option? And why can't I then deny the Tau I face thier shooting Phase?

and one of the reasons I most of the time choose not to play competitively

Hehehe. And we're back to "can you play 40k non competitively?".

[Zhukov]

Nobody forces you to take a particular army. If you handicap yourself by taking a particular army then it is you who chooses to not be competitive.

I think you've just made my point for me.

You say handicap for taking an army that's been comped. Well, it's the comp that has forced the handicap, not the players choice of what army to play. Let's not devolve this into "you can choose not to go to that tournament then".

A houserule that restricts a single army isn't something that effects all players equally. Hell, a houserule that effects even something as a phase of the game doesn't effect all armies equally.

You wish! But no I have not, because you ignore 1 part of it:

You are free to pick a different army. Comp forces the handicap, but not to play with that handicap. Pick an army which is not handicapped instead!

There is no difference with comp and GW constantly refreshing rules for example. The new Marine codex might make certain armies not competitive and thus functioning exactly the same as certain comp.

[Gentlemanloser]

Except GW refreshes are canon/core/from the designers.  While 'comp' is just player based houserules. ;)

 

 

 

You are free to pick a different army.

 

You're free not to go to the tournament...

 

 

More seriously, the houserule is making a single/multiple specific army choices less attractive.  The organisers are picking and choosing what armies are the most desirable.

 

Not the players themselves.

[Zhukov]

Except GW refreshes are canon/core/from the designers. While 'comp' is just player based houserules.

More seriously, the houserule is making a single/multiple specific army choices less attractive. The organisers are picking and choosing what armies are the most desirable.

Not the players themselves.

Different origin, same result.

The players never pick what armies are the most desirable, comp or no comp. The organisers are picking and choosing instead of the designers, correct, which one can find a bad thing, but which does not make the game uncompetitive, don't forget what we are discussing here.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

The players never pick what armies are the most desirable

 

Oh there are other factors that go into what army a player picks, be it asthetics, or playstyle preferences.  But without outside manipulation of an armies units/potency, then what the players pick are the most desirable. ;)

[Zhukov]

Lol!

Would it satisfy you if I am willing to settle for comp potentially making the game less competitive?

Also, Prot, we need a new topic regarding 'Know thy foe' lol.