# You brought three Heldrakes?! What a dick!



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

When did this attitude start to take over in 40k? And why?

I'm not referring to just bringing Heldrakes but any strong unit used en masse. Why do we as a 40k community (myself included to be honest) automatically assume a list with mutiple strong units is 'cheesey' and the player is a dick? 

I personally started to notice this phenomena when the Space Wolves codex came out. If you brought 3 squads of Long Fangs people tended to assume you were a win-at-all-costs jerk. Then Vendettas had their run, then Night Scythes, and currently Heldrakes and Wave Serpents. There may be more, feel free to post them, but those are the one's I could come up with.

Why are these players not considered strong list builders who've managed to build powerful armies with relative points efficiency? Why are the considered amateur dicks with no creativity or generalsmanship? Is it because it seems some how easier to win with those armies? 

Even if it is easier to win, why do we tend to get so angry about it? I used to get angry at the power of Wave Serpents used en masse. However I've recently begun to think of it as a challenge to overcome and I think it's making me a better player for it.

What are your thoughts on this phenomena?


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I think it's more to do with the percieved balance issues between codex's, if a new codex has a powerful toy that has few countermeasures and your opponent spams them, then irritation towards the person that prefers to break a game before it's even started is inevitable.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Are you talking casual games or tourny scene?


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Why are these players not considered strong list builders who've managed to build powerful armies with relative points efficiency? Why are the considered amateur dicks with no creativity or generalsmanship?


It's a balance exploitation issue. So many armies cannot answer 3 Heldrakes that it makes the game less enjoyable. It forces everyone else bar Tau into 'Forge World, Allies, or go fuck yourself!' situations (Dark Angels, Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines are all 6th edition Codices that have essentially no native anti-flyer, let alone any 5th edition Codices). Bringing 2 Heldrakes and a unit of Spawn is still pretty brutal (probably as brutal as 3 Heldrakes if you play it right), but people don't frown on it so much as most people can bring an answer to it or create a new tactic to deal with it instead of just having to buy more stuff.

Flyers tend to make the game into an arms race - I don't really like the Stormraven model, or it's idea, and I didn't really fancy taking up a valuable Allied slot to take one. But I didn't really have much choice - it was the best, most effective thing to bring in a meta in which everyone else had a Flyer (I also converted a Mortis Dreadnought, which looks silly but I keep it since it's absolutely pivotal to protect my sorry ass from Heldrakes when I play DA).

3 Heldrakes is not actually that overpowered. Well, ok, yeah, against 90% of armies, it is. But an army with 9 Hydras or 6 Broadsides with attached characters to give them Skyfire and double FOC to give them 2 Aegis Lines with Quad-Guns will just laugh in your face. People don't like unbalanced lists - I probably gave a guy way too hard a time at an event I attended for bringing possible the shittiest list I've ever seen. It works both ways - people hate it when you bring an imbalanced list with 3 of the toughest, most powerful flyers in the game, people hate it when you bring 180 Boyz with 2 Big Meks, people hate it when you bring Footdar.



Iron_Freak220 said:


> Is it because it seems some how easier to win with those armies?


It is. 3 Heldrakes is more powerful than any other combination of Fast Attack slots. You roll dice for them to enter play, then you point them at stuff you want to die. Stuff duly dies.



Iron_Freak220 said:


> If you brought 3 squads of Long Fangs people tended to assume you were a win-at-all-costs jerk


You weren't? You were honestly bringing 3 units of Long Fangs for fluff reasons, or aesthetic? No, you were doing it to win. That's not a problem in itself, but you have to admit that if you're bringing 3 Heldrakes or 6 Night Scythes or 3x6 Long Fangs, you're trying to win at all costs.

Not sure what I'm trying to say here, because while I see where you're coming from, I would personally not enjoy a game against someone bringing 3 Heldrakes.

Midnight


----------



## jesse (Sep 29, 2008)

Not to disagree Iron_Freak, but i think this whole mess start with the chaos codex back in 4th edition. The infamous lash prince oblit spam was considered by many to be a beardy list. I admire your perspective on facing such lists, as in an actual 40k battle, such "lists" are very possible. I think most peoples distaste for these lists stems from the fact that they are generally unfun to play against. Fighting against three helldrakes offers little to no counter play unless you are expecting it and have an exorbitant amount of flyers or flyer defense. If youre playing a balanced list, and have say an aegis defense line, the choas/necron player is going to focus that down until its dead and then rape the rest of your army because flyers are difficult to bring down without them. You could make the argument that helldrakes are ostly tooled for anti infantry and taking three will put holes in your list, but will it really? Three helldrakes is roughly six hundred points, and a player could easily fit a fair amount of anti tank into their list at the 2000 point level. 

TL;DR
Spam lists are generally unfun to play against, with the general of said army usually just try to WAAC for the sake of it.

My 2 cents

EDIT: ninja'd


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Yeah I think's basically the difference between casually enjoying the game and playing it seriously. I for one rarely have the same unit repeated and despite knowing some units are worse than others I'll still go for them for a bit of variety, such as having shooty terminators over thunder hammer ones.


----------



## fatmantis (Jun 26, 2009)

too me, its a case of enjoyment..i like to play fluffy lists for the fun..like my ravenwing...but when some turns up with 3 heldrakes i wont even unbox my models i just declare him the win...not to be a baby or anything its just why wast 2 hours on a game where im being beaten by a book and a person with no imagination.

i prefer to play people who are VERY creative with there lists and really think about their tactics, so when you play it is a battle of wits..not codexes...thats my point of view.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

It is all a problem of game "math." And its been the same basic algorithm with every edition of the game.

MidnightSun said it very well. Some armies have units that tend to be more points and/or damage efficient than others. When I bring that every game or bring as many of them per game then I'm not writing an army so much as choosing the army optimized by the author of the army book.

For example, under the much maligned 3.5 Chaos codex in addition to iron warriors being a by-word for cheese, Bloodletters were ridiculously powerful and would easily sweep and enemies flank. They could charge the same turn they were summoned (i.e. you couldn't shoot them first), were strength 5, had 3+/5+ saves, had power weapons, and were basically fearless. While I had enough to bring 3 units of 8, that was pretty excessive. They were effectively a troops choice, who point for point were only a hairs breadth less effective than assault terminators.

The same is essentially true with Heldrakes. The same was true of nobz on cyboars in 2nd ed. Or vindicators in 3rd ed. 

Again to paraphrase MidnightSun, if you wouldn't have fun fighting against your own army then it's probably cheesy. 

Another quick test, if an army which is min-maxed in such a way steamrolls most "balanced" all-comers lists then it might be abusive. Legal within the rules, sure, but abusive.


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

Don't forget the part where Black Legion can now run FOUR Heldrakes. Personally, as a fan of giant walker mechs, I was trying to find ways of putting Farsight + Tau to make Four (or five) Riptide forces.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

Riptides are also pretty cheesy- the only wounds the enemy's been around long enough to cause on me was two from a vindicars turbo round a couple nova wounds


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Xabre said:


> Don't forget the part where Black Legion can now run FOUR Heldrakes.


Double force organization chart.

The other main reason you hear bitching about 3 Heldrakes is that whilst many, many codices can make a list that's just as nasty or nastier, nobody in the world will ever buy the models (2 Haemonculi, 12 units of Warriors with Blasters in Venoms, 3 Ravagers and a token squad of Wracks or 8 Tervigons and 60 Termagants). 3 Heldrakes? Sure, that's expensive, but no more so than many of the alternatives you'd buy for the army. It's affordable and thus will be commonplace. Triple Drake actually happens to people, and people actually lose to it, which is why everyone complains about it.

Midnight


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Why are these players not considered strong list builders who've managed to build powerful armies with relative points efficiency? Why are the considered amateur dicks with no creativity or generalsmanship? Is it because it seems some how easier to win with those armies?


Because a lot of the time they haven't come up with it. It's fairly general knowledge that Helldrakes are powerful and hard to kill, more so when you take mulitples of them. You play Chaos and you want to win easily, what do you do? Take 3 Helldrakes, not much in the way creativity or tactics there. A lot of these lists are net lists. That's why.

I don't play the game often (read at all) but if I wanted to play and my opponent poped 3 helldrakes down on the table I'd start packing my minis away straight away, you want to run those lists? Go play in a tournie where it's WAC or play against another player who is also WAC, for a casual game against me, who just wants to play for laughs I don't want to play a game where I've got no chance due to:

A) My lack of experiance
B) My list which generally be themed and therefore not the strongest.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

I play casually against 2 Heldrakes and it's cool. They fuck my shit up, but yeah...I still win the games. Plus I figure if I ever get my lazy ass out to the store to play a game or two I'll be right and ready for any flier force I take on just because I'm used to so much worse.


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

Actually Midnight, just like Farsight with 4 Riptides, Chaos/BL can do 4 Heldrakes _without_ a second detachment. Many tournaments will run 1999+1 just to avoid that, but no one can stop allies (at least not that I've ever seen). So Chaos allying with Black Legion will allow 4 Heldrakes, for a whole new level of redundancy.

Personally, I'm a believer in 'if it's good enough to run, run two'. If the Heldrake is that good, which it is, I believe in running 2 because one's going to die. If I'm only running one of something, the creative side of my brain immediately decides it has to be something special, character-worthy, etc. Tanks are the same way for me; any tank that's good enough to take is good enough to be shot at, so I better have two. Three is usually overkill, unless I'm writing a themed list... for instance, a giant Walker list where I'm running Farsight, and there's nothing smaller than a Bulky Crisis.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

If they take 3 heldrakes, take 3 land raiders and then laugh at their cute str7 vector strikes...

I don't have an issue with it per se. Well actually, I do, because spamming any unit repeatedly usually shows a lack of creativity. Not always (sometimes it's reasonable to spam units due to fluff reasons, which is fine in my book), but usually this is the case. And I do not like the massive drop off in creativity in 40k, it's bad for the hobby...I like winning and all and would be lying if I said I didn't, but if you are going for competitive gaming or even fun gaming with an eye to win, at least do it creatively rather than going on the internet and just copy/pasting the latest 'in' list...Zero respect for people that do this. And I just don't encounter players who do this anyway. Unfortunately, my friend who lives in another town only has one gaming club he can go to and is stuck with power gamers or idiots who just bring the latest internet 'in' lists...So he has responded with the 3 Land Raiders (and a techmarine biker for 4++ on them!) because it makes Heldrakes pretty much useless, purely to fuck them over  Fighting cheese with cheese.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

IMO with the introduction of "Flyers" into the game did I start to find that some things are "unfun" because it is practically impossible to shoot the shit without an ADL or something else.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I think there have been units or builds that have been "un fun" in every edition. 

In 3rd or 4th ed, I had a friend with a marine army and some min-maxed number of missile launchers, and as mix of terminators, veterans, and characters that was pretty obscene. He could out shoot just about anything, and then handily assault anything that survived. But other than the preponderance of missile launchers it wasn't abusive - just really good.

Playing against my friend's Eldar harlequins in 2nd ed was pretty awful. Based on the shooting rules almost nothing could hit them. And they killed pretty much everything in close combat. I saw them kill greater daemons, space marine captains, vehicles, chaos lords, give tyrants, genestealers . . . Just about everything.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Because GW insist on writing army lists with a single shining good unit in a particular FOC section that outstrips the holy living FUCK out of every other choice available. 

If they wrote codices where every entry was at least viable and none were obvious must-haves this Rock/Paper/Scissors game would go away.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Klokk, I'm not sure why they do that. Whether it is intentional to sell new units (e.g. heldrakes) or whether it is a by product of the 'organic'/non-systemic way that codices are written/re-written. It still boggle my mind that for all intents and purposes, and as fat as GW will admit - there is no system to allocate points values to skills, abilities, and equipment. 

The lack of a systematic basis for points allocation just seems blatantly wrong headed to me. They could do the statistical analysis, on unit by unit interactions, establish a benchmark, theory-craft how they expect the game to work on paper, and check that with practical play testing.

A friend and I once tried to create a rating system that would interpret units and provide a sort of 'realpolitik' evaluation of their points-worthiness, but we never got past marines before calling it quits.

Either they are lying and have such a system, or they have a deliberate reason for not developing one, but I can't imagine what it would be.


----------



## jesse (Sep 29, 2008)

If GW was a game company first and a model company second maybe this would be possible Dethklok. But nothing says good business like selling 3 $75 kits to anyone who wants to run 3 helldrakes


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Xabre said:


> Personally, I'm a believer in 'if it's good enough to run, run two'. If the Heldrake is that good, which it is, I believe in running 2 because one's going to die. If I'm only running one of something, the creative side of my brain immediately decides it has to be something special, character-worthy, etc. Tanks are the same way for me; any tank that's good enough to take is good enough to be shot at, so I better have two. Three is usually overkill, unless I'm writing a themed list...


My own perspective, encapsulated. I don't mind buying 2 biker lords and 3 large bike squads if that's 1,000 points of my list, or something, but apart from that I tend to run good things in pairs.

I don't resent WAAC players for bringing cheesy lists, but I'd rather play a well-generalled army of Tau with forge world sensor towers and tetras for 30 BS5 twin-linked pulse rifle shots into my assault army's face, so I know this general has earned this victory, than fight Serpent Spam or some such.

List-building is an art, and knowing that I put together the list that is chain Pavane-ing and Psychic Shrieking a unit to death with my allied Keeper of Secrets/Daemon Prince while that squad has had its LD lowered to 2 by my 3 psyker battle squads' Weaken Resolve is so much more satisfying than running a cookie cutter Triple Dragon list.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

It's stuff like this why I stopped playing (along with price and a shoddy rule system), I don't want every game I play to be hyper competitive, and I don't like the focus on flyers in 6th (though I do understand it since the flyers cost allot of $$$£££¥¥¥€€€), if I come to a casual game with my themed, all round, casual army and see spam arrayed before me, I'll quit during deployment, the game will be great fun for them, but why am I playing?

It's why I don't like competitive players, they care about their fun, but they never give a fuck about their opponents fun


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Mossy Toes said:


> I don't resent WAAC players for bringing cheesy lists, but I'd rather play a well-generalled army of Tau with forge world sensor towers and tetras for 30 BS5 twin-linked pulse rifle shots into my assault army's face, so I know this general has earned this victory, than fight Serpent Spam or some such.


But being a good general is hard. Buying three Heldrakes is easy. Increasingly, people want to do easy things in their spare time without having to put effort in (see how popular TV is over reading and weep). Doing something difficult as a hobby is anathema to a whole new generation of wargamers. I have to admire GW for capitalising on this to maximise their profits.



Mossy Toes said:


> List-building is an art, and knowing that I put together the list that is chain Pavane-ing and Psychic Shrieking a unit to death with my allied Keeper of Secrets/Daemon Prince while that squad has had its LD lowered to 2 by my 3 psyker battle squads' Weaken Resolve is so much more satisfying than running a cookie cutter Triple Dragon list.


Has the Pavane/Psychic Shriek thing _ever_ worked for you? I've seen a lot of people say it's crazy good in theory, then use it and realise how unreliable it is, but I've never had the chance to see it first hand.

Midnight


----------



## Wookiepelt (Jan 29, 2013)

I had actually faced 3 Helldrakes on my 3rd game after a 15+ years hiatus from tabletop gaming! Thank the stars I had the ADL with a WGBL (on BS5) manning the Quadgun. They all came in Turn 2 but I managed to score a penetrating hit with the Intercept and duly rolled a 6! Got rid of the second on Turn 3 with glancing hits from the ADL and manage another penetrating hit with yet another roll of 6 on Turn 4 for the last! Mind you, in those three turns, the Vector strike from the remaining Helldrakes bleed my hunters while his Obliterators hounded the rest of my forces!

Lost the game, that was for sure but took home a morale victory (and many pats on the back at the club) for taking down those three Helldrakes! Don't know what I would have done without the ADL/Quadgun combo that night.

Now this is where I have to admit that I've threaded toward the "dark side"... 3 weeks later, I started looking at Allied options with the Imperial Guards for my 2000pts list and went out to obtain a simple Company Command Squad (HQ 50pts), 10-man Veteran Squad (Troop 70pts) AND a Squadron of 3 Vendettas (Fast Attack 420pts)!

I have to say that so far I've used it once (albeit with only 2 Vendettas and swapping the 3rd for a Master of Ordnance Advisor) and even with 2 Vendettas, it was a massive over-kill against an army without AA. I actually felt ashamed on winning that one-sided match.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> Has the Pavane/Psychic Shriek thing _ever_ worked for you? I've seen a lot of people say it's crazy good in theory, then use it and realise how unreliable it is, but I've never had the chance to see it first hand.


Just played a game where it performed excellently. Though it was against a melee Dark Eldar list, so... not a competitive match, per se.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Wookiepelt said:


> I actually felt ashamed on winning that one-sided match.


I want to win, but I don't want to just steamroll my friends all the time. If I have a list that wins a bunch of games in a row I will retire it and do something that seems like I have less chance of winning. I'm currently trying to make lists with super low model counts that I can still use effectively. Not only do I have to use each unit like a scalpel but it's also easier to transport to and from games k:

I wouldn't get hard up on people spamming units, but I would get tired of playing against the exact same list every time. Eventually I would have to tailor a list to show that person all good things must come to an end.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Mossy Toes said:


> Just played a game where it performed excellently. Though it was against a melee Dark Eldar list, so... not a competitive match, per se.


Forget the Psychic bit, just Shriek and Dark Eldar die in droves. A Dark Eldar Melee list? Gotta admire the man's balls.

Midnight


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Ok so it seems like people agree on two things:

1.) Most codecies have obvious units that are worth more than their points in effectiveness.


2a.) A list will be built to win at all costs or

2b.) A list will be built for fun


If someone spams a lot of 1 then their list must be 2a. If they don't then their list can be considered 2b.

In order for both players to have the same expectations for the game they should agree before the start that they are playing either 2a or 2b type lists.

Do you think simply agreeing on what type of game you will play before you start or even write your lists will help eliminate some of the malcontent people feel about triple Heldrake, etc?


----------



## jesse (Sep 29, 2008)

Well i dont think spamming of some units is that bad. It depends on the context of the list. For example, i dislike using scouts when i use Space Marines, therefore my troops consists of tac marines. Im not doing it to be a dick, thats just my unit preference. Same goes for SW. Why would i take blood claws when i can take grey hunters? Taking three o four units of grey hunters IS spam, but i wouldnt say its to WAAC, or because im just a dick in general.

I think agreeing on whether or not youre playing a casual game before lists are written would help alleviate some of the players discontent for spam lists. I would do this when playing against friends, but not in a pick up game simply because i wouldnt be comfortable a stranger (or someone that i dont know well) that they should play their army a certain way.


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

My current 'all around' list is going to involve 2 Heldrakes... but 3 squads of Thousand Sons. Can I be cheesy with epic Heldrakes zooming around, and yet have the shittiest troop choice in the codex to counter? This is because my army is fluff-based, and I like Dragons to go with my sorcerers.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> In order for both players to have the same expectations for the game they should agree before the start that they are playing either 2a or 2b type lists.
> 
> Do you think simply agreeing on what type of game you will play before you start or even write your lists will help eliminate some of the malcontent people feel about triple Heldrake, etc?


Nailed.

Midnight


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

The problem you'll get though is that players with 3 Heldrakes or Necron flying circus lists will have spent a lot of time and money on their list so while asking for a game against them is up to you can you then ask that you dictate their list.
Most of the better generals at the club I go to have spam lists and thats all they'll play which means I'm lucky to get a draw, whereas the weaker generals normally feild fluffy stuff and my army usually tables them which I find dull, I would'nt expect either type of opponent to change how they play just to make my game better although if asked I'd offer advice to the fluffy gamers on competative list building and tactics.
I like to win but it's also important that both gamers have fun how do you find the balance?


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

I can't imagine asking my opponent to play a certain style of list so the game is more fun. To me, that is the complete opposite of what strategy games are all about, but I also just went through the new Space Hulk game and beat every mission without losing a marine on Hard.

I want that challenge.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

Would you recommend that game?
Bit of a tangent but I don't want to waste all my cash on it if it sucks


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Why are these players not considered strong list builders who've managed to build powerful armies with relative points efficiency? Why are the considered amateur dicks with no creativity or generalsmanship? Is it because it seems some how easier to win with those armies?


I'm confused about how "Read Internet, take pre-built win-button Net list" makes somebody a strong list builder who "managed" to do anything other than read a few forums and pay dollars for Helldrakes. 

It isn't like there's some complicated combo at play here. :biggrin:


----------



## fatmantis (Jun 26, 2009)

im my little club we try to teach the younger/new players to learn to use EVERY UNIT in there book...be it good or bad. i believe that even if a unit is bad "according to the net" it can still have a job to preform even if it a throw away unit...eg, in the old eldar i got told jet bikes were usless and so were guardians, now all of a sudden the rules change and every body basically takes the list the i was using in the old codex. the same goes with 5th ed and nobody liked plasma now its all the rage.

i find the people in my club like to win, but they win using tactics and can still have fluffy lists...it makes the game fun for everybody. but i guess it comes down to the local meta


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

neilbatte said:


> Most of the better generals at the club I go to have spam lists and thats all they'll play


That doesn't make them better generals, spamming powerful units to increase the % of winning does not make anyone better at the game, just lazier.

But then 40k is decided by the lists, not the game.


----------



## fatmantis (Jun 26, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> That doesn't make them better generals, spamming powerful units to increase the % of winning does not make anyone better at the game, just lazier.
> 
> But then 40k is decided by the lists, not the game.


i wholeheartedly agree with this...in my opinion there is nothing more boring than playing against a person that is obsessed with mathhammer.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

If you were a general in the military, how would you feel if your commander in chief told you to utilize your wounded and sick just so that everyone in your command could be fielded?


Why is it that a strong general is ostricized for bringing strong units rather than lauded for building the strongest list his codex can make?


Does bringing the strongest units in your codex make you obsessed with Mathhammer?Does writing a list with the strongest units make you lazy?Does playing a list with the strongest units make you a bad general?

It seems like the answers to the three proceding questions are automatically assumed to be yes. I don't think that is fair. Sure, because of the internet, any player cab find a prebuilt strong list but someone had to come up with it originally. I think it should be complimented for a job well done and anyone who chooses to play that list should be thankful for the opportunity. Anyone who plays against it should consider it a challenge and adapt. Look to the armies in the Vietnam War for inspiration.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

As I asked before, it matters if you are playing casual or tourny. Tourny scene this is expected and assumed to be happening. If it is a casual game you are going to be playing against people that might be there to play their really fluffy army. Fluffy armies on average do not have spam and are not always streamlined to be the strongest possible.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> I think it should be complimented for a job well done and anyone who chooses to play that list should be thankful for the opportunity. .


Yeah, but this makes the flawed suggestion that finding the strongest units in the codex was going to be difficult, and that it wasn't going to just happen automatically. It doesn't take skill and talent to figure out what the best units are in any given army list. We're talking about a very limited number of variables at play. 

It wasn't some genius who discovered three Helldrakes was awesome, or the quad-spammed Farsight allied Riptides was powerful. :laugh:


Mathhammer is not calculus. It's not even pre-algebra. It's math on a level taught only a grade or two out of school days that included nap times.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Give somebody a pat on the back for finding a math hammer list on the net? That's like like giving a teenager a high five for finding porn.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

veteran sergeant said:


> mathhammer is not calculus. It's not even pre-algebra. It's math on a level taught only a grade or two out of school days that included nap times.


qft


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Fallen said:


> qft


I had to google that.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

That's not the point. The point is why the assumption that spamming strong codex units automatically makes you a dick? Why is always assumed that every player should play casual games?

I realize that not everyone feels that way, but whenever a comment is made about triple Heldrakes it is never about building competitive lists, at least not in a serious manner. It's more typically about being a cheese monster or an amateur.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

The game was/ is sold as models above rules, causal beer and pretzels style play. Having fun and doing something with a fun story behind it also has been the main selling point. Never has it been advertised as play the strongest spam list possible. Hence the 'your a dick' response in non tourny situations.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> If you were a general in the military, how would you feel if your commander in chief told you to utilize your wounded and sick just so that everyone in your command could be fielded?
> 
> 
> Why is it that a strong general is ostricized for bringing strong units rather than lauded for building the strongest list his codex can make?
> ...


1: a real general does not choose his army, he is given an army under his command and must best utilize its strongest and weakest elements effectively, he is not given the best hardware in the world instantly.

2: your not a general fighting a battle, your not making life or death choices, your a gamer playing with toys in a ruleset that the designers have freely admitted hundreds of times is NOT a competitive ruleset but instead IS a narrative ruleset.

People complain because spamming powerful units to win goes entirely against the spirit of the written rules, in effect your breaking the rules, your not doing it for a narrative, or for fluff, or for a good fought game between two players, your doing it because YOU MUST WIN, YOU MUST HAVE FUN, fuck everyone else, fuck your opponent, you have no respect for them, so why give them the opportunity to enjoy the game


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> That's not the point. The point is why the assumption that spamming strong codex units automatically makes you a dick? Why is always assumed that every player should play casual games?


Why is it assumed that you must always have the best list possible?

If you show up to a store for a drop in game with three Helldrakes you aren't wanting a casual game you're wanting to win at all costs. 99% of people know the power of them and if you are in the one % who don't after your first game you soon will. It doesn't take a genius to run them and win with them. Everybody knows this game has major balance issues, acknowledging them and then exploiting them is what makes you a dick. More so when you are using a combo that is well known to be over powered. I say again taking a list of the net that's proven by countless people to be highly effective and winning with it does not make you a good player.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> People complain because spamming powerful units to win goes entirely against the spirit of the written rules, in effect your breaking the rules, your not doing it for a narrative, or for fluff, or for a good fought game between two players, your doing it because YOU MUST WIN, YOU MUST HAVE FUN, fuck everyone else, fuck your opponent, you have no respect for them, so why give them the opportunity to enjoy the game


:goodpost:

This a hundred times.

Midnight


----------



## 5tonsledge (May 31, 2010)

I think Heldrakes wouldnt be considered op if the Flyer special rule didnt exist. Think about it. they were just skimmers prior to 6th ed. Armor 12 point sinks with 24 inch movement( not able to fire if moving flat out) not as great. Yes i agree Heldrakes are perfect marine killers. I think SM players Loyalist Scum or Traitors alike are gonna have some serious issues countering them since both armies seem to lack Cost Affective Skyfire. But you wont hear me cry op on Heldrakes Considering the 2 strongest armies in my opinion are GK and Tau. Tau list right now with 3 Riptides with Ion Accelerators are just a tad bit on Game Breaking Cost efficiency.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

kiro the avenger! said:


> Would you recommend that game?
> Bit of a tangent but I don't want to waste all my cash on it if it sucks


If you liked Space Hulk then you will like the game, it's literally a video adaption of the board game. I have, however, conquered it in almost an entire sense at this point, seemingly only a month after it came out. I've beaten in thoroughly enough to have gotten 86% of all the achievements so far. I will....require more DLC to further my purging of Genestealers.



5tonsledge said:


> I think SM players Loyalist Scum or Traitors alike are gonna have some serious issues countering them since both armies seem to lack Cost Affective Skyfire.


SM have the Stormtalon, Stormraven, Hunter, Stalker, ADL

CSM have the Heldrake (which has VS'd my SR's out numerous times), FMCs (again, VS) and access to the ADL.

Where is the lack of ability to deal with Fliers?


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

scscofield said:


> The game was/ is sold as models above rules, causal beer and pretzels style play. Having fun and doing something with a fun story behind it also has been the main selling point. Never has it been advertised as play the strongest spam list possible. Hence the 'your a dick' response in non tourny situations.


I think this and what Stella said is the real root of the issue. I (and I'm sure many others) had actually forgotten that the beginning of the rulebook states that it is a beer and pretzels kinda game.

I like competitive, brain-stimulating games and so that's how I see 40k, as a chess variant with guns. Others clearly see 40k as a fun pastime to enjoy over some beer with friends. Different strokes for different folks.

I believe that simply asking people what kind of style of 40k they like to play will help prevent mismatches in casual games because there are casual-fun players and casual-competitive players. I think its important to make the distinction between TWO types of CASUAL players.

So some people bring 3 Heldrakes because its arguably more effective than any other choices in the CSM codex however the casual-fun players regard this as uncreative and overpowered (which it is), and that's fine. Some people bring Warp Talons and Thousand Sons because they are fun however the casual-competitive players regard this as ineffective and a waste of points (which it is), but that's also fine.

I think we need to understand what type of player the person writing the list, posting on the forum, or playing the game is before we go making judgements about what kind of general, person, etc they are. Don't judge a book basically.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Agreed with alot of points made here. For casual/fun games I don't like using even a single heldrake. The flip side of that would be...try to show up to a tournament without at least 2, and see how badly you lose. It's one of the only things in that book of mediocrity that's keeping its head above water. Just see what kind of game you're playing before hand, and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I think GW deliberately made them good because the models were rubbish.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> I think GW deliberately made them good because the models were rubbish.


Could well be. Heldrakes were nothing special until their silly FAQ, which came after a period just long enough to make an assessment of how well the kits were selling. Of course, only the most bitter-hearted cynic would see it that way...

Midnight


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Seems a bit tinfoil hattish. I mean, GW wouldn't limite grav cannons to Centurions and Locator Beacons to Bike Scouts just to push sales of the models would they?


----------



## fatmantis (Jun 26, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> .try to show up to a tournament without at least 2, and see how badly you lose. .


i have to disagree with this,,,i dont run a single adl or flyers in my ultramarine list, and yet the guy i play that runs 2 heldrakes has yet to bet me.
i think the reliance on heldrakes tends to make you a lazy player in the fact that it really needs no tactics, point and flame models die...no real tactics needed.
you can run an effective Csm list it just take a lot of thought...i wrote a tournament list for a guy i called it "double trouble" it had no adl or heldrake/forgefiend and he cleaned up..not that the list was very strong it had good tactics behind it ( and i was hoping that people would be geared up for flyers) so it can be done.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

fatmantis said:


> i have to disagree with this,,,i dont run a single adl or flyers in my ultramarine list, and yet the guy i play that runs 2 heldrakes has yet to bet me.
> i think the reliance on heldrakes tends to make you a lazy player in the fact that it really needs no tactics, point and flame models die...no real tactics needed.
> you can run an effective Csm list it just take a lot of thought...i wrote a tournament list for a guy i called it "double trouble" it had no adl or heldrake/forgefiend and he cleaned up..not that the list was very strong it had good tactics behind it ( and i was hoping that people would be geared up for flyers) so it can be done.


Again......it depends on how competitive your local meta/tourney scene is. Has nothing to do with being lazy, unimaginative, and whatever other slanderous adjective you threw in there. Also the inclusion of a heldrake doesn't automatically make you a lazy, unimaginative general with bad tactics. Believe it or not, it still does require thought to use effectively....and believe it or not, it can still only drop a single template per turn assuming its alive. This is exactly why I'm liking the csm book less and less. You can run without drakes and absolutely struggle for wins (competitivly speaking only) or you can bring drakes and hear nothing but whining about how overpowered they are when you win. It's like oblit/lash v2.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I almost fell on the floor in laughter from the notion a helldrake actually requiring thought to use


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> Believe it or not, it still does require thought to use effectively....


In so far as you have to think 'I really need a shit' when you gotta take one. A tactics article on Heldrakes would be something like: 'Don't aim it at Terminators or Land Raiders, you fucking moron'. That's it.

On a side note, my local GW Manager is a CSM player who brings a list with 3 Heldrakes and refuses to let anyone say it's overpowered in store. Mind you, he reckons the best list in the current meta is Typhus and 1300pts of Plague Zombies, so not entirely sure he's sane (for those interested, Heldrakes are supposedly balanced as they cannot score, and thusly cannot win the game. As a counterpoint to 'it doesn't need to, because it kills all objective holders ever', he argues that if you hide all your dudes in Land Raiders, the Heldrake can't kill them, and then you jump out last turn to claim all the objectives. You have to think strategically, man).

Midnight


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

He won't let people say Helldrakes are OP'd in store? Putting aside the obvious control issues that he has... 

So... if your army doesn't have access to a transport with AV14 all sides you are supposed to do... what? Ally with one? You can access 4 via allies max. So to counter 1 spammed unit his only solution is to ally with Black Templars and bring 4 Landraiders of which only 2 can act as a dedicated transport for troops? 

If that's not the definition of OP'd unit I don't know what is. One thing I do know however is that if you look up the definition of "stupid little hitler cunt" that guy's name and picture would be under it.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Jacobite said:


> If that's not the definition of OP'd unit I don't know what is. One thing I do know however is that if you look up the definition of "stupid little hitler cunt" that guy's name and picture would be under it.


And here I thought you meant lady-parts with a Hitler mustache.

Impressively, that makes him a dick _and_ a Hitler cunt.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Well he does sound like one talented wargamer running a triple drake list and all.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

And it's so balanced that only a few armies can 'counter' it- for twice to thrice the points, taking up other valuable options


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

kiro the avenger! said:


> And it's so balanced that only a few armies can 'counter' it- for twice to thrice the points, taking up other valuable options


Which usually results in you spamming things, which you then become as bad as the helldrake spammer


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

And there was me thinking all GW employees were the epitome of gaming knowledge and tactical advice.
Thankfully freedom of speech means If I want to say helldrakes are OP I will and fuck the store manager maybe he actually believes in the mythical game balance that people talk of and even the oldest armies have a well hidden hard counter to mass flyers of any type.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

neilbatte said:


> And there was me thinking all GW employees were the epitome of gaming knowledge and tactical advice.
> Thankfully freedom of speech means If I want to say helldrakes are OP I will and fuck the store manager maybe he actually believes in the mythical game balance that people talk of and even the oldest armies have a well hidden hard counter to mass flyers of any type.


Not advisable unless you want a permanent ban.

Midnight


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

No one in my store uses a Heldrake, what exactly is wrong with them?


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> No one in my store uses a Heldrake, what exactly is wrong with them?


Damn near unkillable with multi-layer defenses, immense damage output, all the benefits of Flyers with none of the downsides, criminally undercosted.

Midnight


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

Lets just say AP3 torrent 360 degree on the weapon, flyer and vector strike, that is daemonic and will not die for 200 minus 30 pts 

They win games, they are the shining light in the otherwise mediocre chaos book. Taking 3 is generally considered to be a total douche move, even 2 is considered evil, but you would never field just 1. 

If chaos was released now they would likely cost about 250pts, compared to the awfulness of the tau and DA flyers, heldrakes are just godlike 

Plus I really like the model, other than the hollowness and that it needs a longer tail


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

The tau razor shark is not bad, it's bad compared to the riptide, the sunsharks useless, utterly useless


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

What exactly is a CSM player supposed to do if he wants to win? Many of you have admitted that the codex itself is mediocre save for a single unit, the Heldrake. However if you bring even a single Heldrake, you're automatically a douche. And don't even think about bringing more than one. So what the shit?

Space Marines, Wolves, Tau, Eldar, Guard, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, and Orks can all bring 'fun' lists that have a comparatively good chance of doing well in any given game. The CSM struggles to do well with its army in a 'fun' game which in turn makes the game not that 'fun'. The codex really only has a decent chance of winning if you bring the Heldrake. Believe me, I am a very good player, and have tried many, many different lists without a Heldrake and I always, repeat always, struggle to win against my opponents 'fun' lists. Note, my opponent is always a very good player. When I bring one Heldrake the games are more evenly balanced. I only have a stronger list and chance to win when I bring more than one. And yet, I would still be considered a douche/terrible player because of that. 

And please don't counter with the old cliche: a really good player can make any list work. That's false and really good players who play against other really good players know this.

It sounds like a number of you just got trashed by Heldrakes and now hold a serious grudge. By the way, for those of you who are afraid of Heldrakes, I will be posting a tactica on how to counter them with each army.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> In so far as you have to think 'I really need a shit' when you gotta take one. A tactics article on Heldrakes would be something like: 'Don't aim it at Terminators or Land Raiders, you fucking moron'. That's it.
> 
> On a side note, my local GW Manager is a CSM player who brings a list with 3 Heldrakes and refuses to let anyone say it's overpowered in store. Mind you, he reckons the best list in the current meta is Typhus and 1300pts of Plague Zombies, so not entirely sure he's sane (for those interested, Heldrakes are supposedly balanced as they cannot score, and thusly cannot win the game. As a counterpoint to 'it doesn't need to, because it kills all objective holders ever', he argues that if you hide all your dudes in Land Raiders, the Heldrake can't kill them, and then you jump out last turn to claim all the objectives. You have to think strategically, man).
> 
> Midnight


Seems legit.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> What exactly is a CSM player supposed to do if he wants to win? Many of you have admitted that the codex itself is mediocre save for a single unit, the Heldrake. However if you bring even a single Heldrake, you're automatically a douche. And don't even think about bringing more than one. So what the shit?
> 
> Space Marines, Wolves, Tau, Eldar, Guard, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, and Orks can all bring 'fun' lists that have a comparatively good chance of doing well in any given game. The CSM struggles to do well with its army in a 'fun' game which in turn makes the game not that 'fun'. The codex really only has a decent chance of winning if you bring the Heldrake. Believe me, I am a very good player, and have tried many, many different lists without a Heldrake and I always, repeat always, struggle to win against my opponents 'fun' lists. Note, my opponent is always a very good player. When I bring one Heldrake the games are more evenly balanced. I only have a stronger list and chance to win when I bring more than one. And yet, I would still be considered a douche/terrible player because of that.
> 
> It sounds like a number of you just got trashed by Heldrakes and now hold a serious grudge. By the way, for those of you who are afraid of Heldrakes, I will be posting a tactica on how to counter them with each army.


Does this tell you something about the Chaos Codex? On a side note, I'd be interested to see how Sisters, Dark Eldar, Tyranids and Dark Angels deal with Heldrakes without Allies or Forge World.

Midnight


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> On a side note, I'd be interested to see how Sisters, Dark Eldar, Tyranids and Dark Angels deal with Heldrakes without Allies or Forge World.


Aw c'mon, they all have access to the ADL. What more do you need?


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

The Chaos codex in hindsight was written before GW had decided what to do with 6th

They panicked as they were giving units in DV that weren't in the previous book and rather than doing more extensive tests thought lets just add a couple of bits and fix some of the broken bits from the last codex and call it done. 

The book is to quote a thread name a "soggy mess" 

The worst thing is actually the whole chaos FA choices are actually pretty good and arguably the strongest section in the book (ok WTs are overpriced but look cool) But the strongest section in the codex is just outshone by this one god unit

Chaos players have been backed in to corner, you want to play chaos you have to take a pair of drakes. This is not the players fault its just poor codex writing by GW


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Yep. Chaos is a bit of a black and white codex - it has no 'good' build. It has a great build, and lots of crap ones (like 4th ed Tau, really).

Midnight


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> Yep. Chaos is a bit of a black and white codex - it has no 'good' build. It has a great build, and lots of crap ones (like 4th ed Tau, really).
> 
> Midnight


I think that's all I've ever wanted. Just a little recognition that no matter how good a player you are, a CSM player is still limited to only one strong variety of list: those with Heldrakes.

You guys have made me so happy :')


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> a CSM player is still limited to only one strong variety of list: those with Heldrakes


Unless of course your gaming group doesn't use fliers. I think basically you could say that every army needs to have _some _type of flier defense/air support. I don't remember the last time I made a list that didn't have a flier or some way of dealing with them in my list. I'd love to use that 200 points on something other than a damn Stormraven some days, no matter how much I like the model.

Why can't the moral of this story be use strong units but don't spam them? Iron Freak, you've even said that using only one you still have the ability to be competitive against your opponent's fun lists, do you think you'd have a chance only using one against their more competitive lists?


----------



## furyion (May 1, 2011)

In my tournament group, the top 4 players (in order as of the last tourney):
1)Imperial Guard mech with three vendettas 
2)Me, with gunline armies (Guard, Tau, or Marines) 
3)Chaos spawn and cultists backed by defilers.
4) Typhus plague marine and zombie army with 6 oblits and 3 heldrakes 

I'm not a person to call cheese, but people say that's what I deal with every tournament. I write balanced lists and always do well against or beat the others in the top 4. 

The only one I feel isn't a battle of wits is the heldrake list though. The guy isn't that great of a general, usually more of a rules lawyer and relies on the heldrakes to win for him. No good plays, no real tactics like the rest of us in the top of the bracket. He just sits back and waits for the drakes while the rest of his list shoots away/ gets steam rolled off the table.

That being said, I still enjoy playing against the guy and usually have close games and I win a fair amount of the time. 

The IG player is similar, but a much better general. He plays the rest of his list well and could probably still pull out a win if every vendetta exploded on entry. I've never beat him, though.

So my point is this: Yes, spammed flyers and other powerful units are a pain to deal with, but it definitely doesn't mean they're going to win. The player I haven't mentioned yet (Chaos spawn and cultists) has no anti flyer. None. He's beat both of the others before just by ignoring the flyers and making objective grabs. 

There's always a way to win, you're just going to have to play hard, play smart, and pray to the Dice Gods. :grin:


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

furyion said:


> In my tournament group, the top 4 players (in order as of the last tourney):
> 1)Imperial Guard mech with three vendettas
> 2)Me, with gunline armies (Guard, Tau, or Marines)
> 3)Chaos spawn and cultists backed by defilers.
> 4) Typhus plague marine and zombie army with 6 oblits and 3 heldrakes





furyion said:


> 3)Chaos spawn and cultists backed by defilers.





furyion said:


> defilers.


No. This guy does not come third. He comes first.

Midnight


----------



## furyion (May 1, 2011)

He would if we left his defilers on the table for more than 3 turns. His defiles have a bad habit of exploding on the first pen hit they take.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

A chaos player who uses spawn, cultists AND defilers!!!........my god, this man must be another being, he plays chaos with those units instead of bitching all day long like some spoilt little fucktard...amazing


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Whoa whoa, a successful build without a Heldrake?

According to the interwebz that shit don't fly. No drugs at the event, right? It actually happened?


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

ntaw said:


> Whoa whoa, a successful build without a Heldrake?
> 
> According to the interwebz that shit don't fly.


Of course it doesn't fly. Its got no heldrakes.


----------



## fatmantis (Jun 26, 2009)

ntaw said:


> Whoa whoa, a successful build without a Heldrake?
> 
> According to the interwebz that shit don't fly. No drugs at the event, right? It actually happened?


yes it does happen...i have seen it many times, with just an average list, he one the first tournament then came 3rd in the next with the same list!

as it has been said earlier with flyers you either kill them or ignore them, k:


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Added my orange text in there, sorry you took that seriously :laugh:


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> A chaos player who uses spawn, cultists AND defilers!!!........my god, this man must be another being, he plays chaos with those units instead of bitching all day long like some spoilt little fucktard...amazing


To be fair, Spawn and Cultists are actually solid options. Spawn are, like all the Chaos Fast Attack bar Warp Talons, good-but-overshadowed-by-the-massive-dragon-shape-at-the-top. Cultists are almost Guardsmen, which are awesome, so it figures that Cultists are pretty good too.

But taking multiple Defilers and coming in above a triple Drake list on a regular basis is some mad skills.

Midnight


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

While I agree that new spawn and cultists are pretty good, even chaos players usually bitch about good stuff


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Whoa there, CSM bikes are pretty awesome, too. T6, I5 and FNP, or super charge bonuses and rerolling the charge are not to be sniffed at, even if since the CSM book two biker armies where almost everyone gets skilled rider and hit and run have arrived. Spawn aren't the only other good option.


----------



## furyion (May 1, 2011)

Ya, he's good  completely trashed my Guard and gave my tau a run for their money. And bikers are his other go to unit, ran them nurgle with a nurgle lord with the burning brand of skallathrax. Ouch....


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Stella, if every single one of your posts is going to have something negative to say please and politely gtfo my thread.

As far as the triple defiler list goes, congrats to him. But my dual Heldrake list would have no problem beating his army. I am 100% confident of that. (Of course this makes me a spoiled little fucktard though). So even though it's awesome that the occasional player can do well with other units, this is more the exception to the rule.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Your attitude in this last post is why you see the responses in your OP.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Stella, if every single one of your posts is going to have something negative to say please and politely gtfo my thread.


Having read through THE thread (it doesn't belong to anyone), I am of the view that nothing that Stella has said to date can be considered to be "negative" simply for the sake of gain saying but rather I see a series of valid rebuttals to your points.

If you consider expressing an opinion that differs to your own to be unwelcome, then I'm not entirely sure why you would pose the question in the first place.

By all means continue but lets keep it civil.




MidnightSun said:


> Not advisable unless you want a permanent ban.
> 
> Midnight


Pretty sure you can't actually ban someone from a public shop


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

I think you can (barred from a pub for example) but I would however love to see him try and ban somebody for saying "Helldrake's are OP". Just imagine you've been banned, you walk back into the shop, he calls the cops or the security guard. They ask why you've been banned and ... is the manager really going fess up the real reason? "Oh he disagreed with me about toy soldiers".

Yeah like that is really going to fly.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

That would make a great YouTube video.

More likely the shop owner would use their considerable social clout (Lord of the nerds) with the neophytes to ostracize somebody who says Heldrakes are overpowered.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

scscofield said:


> Your attitude in this last post is why you see the responses in your OP.


Are you implying that my attitudes in the present have the ability to affect the actions of others in the past?




Magpie_Oz said:


> Having read through THE thread (it doesn't belong to anyone), I am of the view that nothing that Stella has said to date can be considered to be "negative" simply for the sake of gain saying but rather I see a series of valid rebuttals to your points.
> 
> If you consider expressing an opinion that differs to your own to be unwelcome, then I'm not entirely sure why you would pose the question in the first place.





Stella Cadente said:


> While I agree that new spawn and cultists are pretty good, even chaos players usually bitch about good stuff





Stella Cadente said:


> my god, this man must be another being, he plays chaos with those units instead of bitching all day long like some spoilt little fucktard...amazing





Stella Cadente said:


> Which usually results in you spamming things, which you then become as bad as the helldrake spammer





Stella Cadente said:


> I almost fell on the floor in laughter from the notion a helldrake actually requiring thought to use





Stella Cadente said:


> your doing it because YOU MUST WIN, YOU MUST HAVE FUN, fuck everyone else, fuck your opponent, you have no respect for them, so why give them the opportunity to enjoy the game





Stella Cadente said:


> That doesn't make them better generals, spamming powerful units to increase the % of winning does not make anyone better at the game, just lazier.





Stella Cadente said:


> It's why I don't like competitive players, they care about their fun, but they never give a fuck about their opponents fun


You don't see anything negative there? 

Also my original post and question sought to answer why people instantly assume that players who spam strong units are automatically dicks and jerks, rather than just a player using a codex to the best of its ability. The point is not, as Stella is so fond of doing, continuing to call those players dicks and 'spoiled little fucktards'.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Double post


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Stella and multiple others in this thread have told you why. You just don't like the answer.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

scscofield said:


> Stella and multiple others in this thread have told you why. You just don't like the answer.


Correction. I don't like the way the answer was presented. Have you not read my posts? I believe up until this last point (which was after being called a spoiled fucktard) I have been nothing but cordial and working to further the thread.

I have actually agreed with most of what was said, even what Stella said. I just don't like the way he insults players while he says it. 

I've agreed with the argument that 40k was designed as a friendly game and that people like me have taken it to be competitive but not everyone feels that way. So when someone shows up with three Heldrakes it contradicts the very reason a fluff/fun 40k player got into the game in the first place and that leads to anger and malcontent.

I actually learned something from this thread, but I did not start it to be insulted or have others be insulted.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Alright let me say it another way then. Your post directed at Stella could be considered a personal attack. If you do not like the tone of his posts ignore them. As Mags said nothing in them warranted your response or the response you did in response to Mags. So drop this and go back to the topic.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Nevermind, I'm over it.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I believe that there are a heck of a lot less "Win at all costs" players about than people seem to think. Look at the actual words again.

Win

At

All

Costs

So what might those costs be? Friendship? Good sportsmanship? Enjoyment?

What are they sacrificing in order to win the game?

In order for something to be a "cost", or indeed to have worth, it needs to be valued by the player. You cannot sacrifice something in the name of winning if you do not value anything but victory itself - a sacrifice must be valued by the person offering it.

An example of someone who wants to "Win at all costs" is someone who will pursue victory while throwing away everything else he values about the game. Otherwise there is no sacrifice, and therefore no cost.

To use the phrase to describe someone who only cares about winning, and not about any other aspect of playing the game, is nonsensical. For that reason, people have taken to using it as a catch-all for competitive players who indeed have something to lose, because most competitive players do in fact value aspects of the hobby beyond winning - they enjoy chatting to friends, meeting new people and developing their skills in a social environment.

The problem arises when they meet people who have no interest in winning, who prefer a collaborative story instead of a winner/loser scenario. Such people will inevitably be trampled into the ground by a competitive player and because of human psychology, will find a need to assign blame, even if no-one is actually at fault.

Thus we have the rise of "Cheesy" as an adjective, "WAAC" as an insult and "Overpowered" as an offense. Because people who lose games need to displace their defeat (a negative experience) onto someone who isn't themselves in order to protect their ego.

A better solution (instead of the bitching we get from both ends of the player spectrum) would be to better evaluate your opponent before a match. Talk for 10 minutes to someone before playing them, and find out if they want the same things as you out of the game. Ask to see their list, and show them yours. If they have a wildly different philosophy to you then simply don't play them, or, if you do, don't complain when either you or they get massacred.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

In my gaming group we have a fairly wide spectrum of gamers, Out of the 20 or so gamers 6~ 8 frequently go into the local GW as well as play at club all of these think nothing to spamming strong units and are generally the driving force behind most of the warhammer at club, Whether is the influence of instore gaming and the pressure to buy whats new and shiny I don't know but they are definately on the competative list side of the fence and half of them are actually good gamers as well.
The rest of the gamers at club are more casual in their attitude towards gaming maybe only playing every few weeks and have a fairly broad level of ability and differing types of list some fairly strong others not so much.
I will happily play either group although financially I could never compete with the competative gamers I've a fair collection of guard so always have a small chance if I'm lucky and don't do anything stupid and when playing the others I know that the pressure to think every thing through is off and a few tactical errors will be forgiven.
The thing is though except on a few rare occasions there is almost no interaction between the two type of gamers and most of the rare games between them are ridiculously 1 sided that it's not that much of a surprise which only shows that the balance in the game is crap.


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> win-at-all-costs


Just one question, why would that make someone a jerk?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Just one question, why would that make someone a jerk?


Is there anything you wouldn't do to win a game?


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Just one question, why would that make someone a jerk?


That's a good question and I'd say the only time it makes you a jerk is if the other player is clearly plays for fluff or fun and you don't let him know what kind of list you're bringing.

Otherwise, it doesn't inherently make you a jerk. However it is arguably easier to win a game with three Heldrakes as opposed to no Heldrakes so that tends to give people the assumption that Heldrake users are not skilled players and are only bringing those units to crush an opponent ie a jerk.

Some players don't like being crushed and as Sethis said tend to look for somewhere other than themselves to place the blame for their defeat. Most players who lose to CSM armies tend to place that blame on the Heldrakes rather than themselves. So the CSM player becomes a jerk for using such an over powered unit (perceived or otherwise) just to win games.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I really don't think one's "jerkiness" is determined by your list but rather how you go about playing.

If you play a guy who laughs at all of your bad luck and crows at his own fortunes then argues BS RAW rules and so forth I think most people will see him as a general dick.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Just one question, why would that make someone a jerk?


I'm going to bring a list that denies YOU any enjoyment
I'm going to abuse the rules because I know I can
I'm going to argue over every little rule that I can
I'm going to belittle and scrutinize every move/dice roll you make
I'm going to cheat
I'm going to brag how amazing my army/dice/me is/am
At the end of the game I'm going to laugh how easy it was and show you no respect
And I'm going to do all this usually with an unpainted army full of proxies.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> I'm going to bring a list that denies YOU any enjoyment
> I'm going to abuse the rules because I know I can
> I'm going to argue over every little rule that I can
> I'm going to belittle and scrutinize every move/dice roll you make
> ...


This goes back to the original point of the post, why does bringing 2 or 3 Heldrakes automatically make you all of these?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> This goes back to the original point of the post, why does bringing 2 or 3 Heldrakes automatically make you all of these?


Re read the thread, its already been said by a few of us


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

So it is not as simple as say an opposing team in sports or a rival you have in a long distance running event taunting you and laughing at your mistakes, trying to trip you up with mind games and using everything at their disposal to win? Like say for example the same types of manipulations that take place during an Olympic event between nations?


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

This seems to happen in all recent codex releases. There is some wierd and wonderful configuration that makes an army stupidly powerful. Like the 9 oblitorator iron warriors or the Seer council with 60 models in. They wer with in the rules but they lacked 'class'. 

Woudl I play against 3 helldrakes? I don't see why not.
Would I enjoy it? Probably but it depends on my opponent, but as long as I had already resigned myself to loosing I'd just try to get the most fun out of the game as possible. Wiping out his command retinue or something along those lines. A moral victory as it were.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> This goes back to the original point of the post, why does bringing 2 or 3 Heldrakes automatically make you all of these?


If we are playing in a tourney, then it's ok to do anything to win. We are in a competitive enviroment.
If we are playing a casual game for our amusemnt you are a dick as much you would be bringing real weapons in a paintball match. 
This is true for any game-breaking, unbalanced and spamming list.
So, if you do this for your sole amusement, you are a dick, because you give a shit about other people's fun. And we all do play to have fun, right? Unless, as I said, we are at a tourney. Then we play to win.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

neilbatte said:


> The thing is though except on a few rare occasions there is almost no interaction between the two type of gamers and most of the rare games between them are ridiculously 1 sided that it's not that much of a surprise which only shows that the balance in the game is crap.


Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support the statement. If a professional football team plays vs an amateur team, the amateurs are going to get thrashed. It doesn't mean football is inherently unfair. It just means one team spends more time training to be better at it.



Stella Cadente said:


> I'm going to bring a list that denies YOU any enjoyment


Why is it my responsibility to write a list that allows my opponent to enjoy the game? It's my list, and my models. You have no moral authority to dictate what I do and do not include in my lists, any more than I have the right to dictate what you bring in yours.



Stella Cadente said:


> I'm going to abuse the rules because I know I can


Define "abuse". Do you mean following the letter of the rules in the books as written? That isn't abuse. That's "following the rules of the game" which is praiseworthy to most people's minds.



Stella Cadente said:


> I'm going to argue over every little rule that I can
> I'm going to belittle and scrutinize every move/dice roll you make
> I'm going to cheat
> I'm going to brag how amazing my army/dice/me is/am
> ...


And once more we have the laundry list of stereotypes which actually have nothing to do with playing a strong competitive list with the aim of winning the game, and everything to do with being a giant twat. The two are not synonymous.



neferhet said:


> If we are playing a casual game for our amusemnt you are a dick as much you would be bringing real weapons in a paintball match.
> This is true for any game-breaking, unbalanced and spamming list.
> So, if you do this for your sole amusement, you are a dick, because you give a shit about other people's fun. And we all do play to have fun, right? Unless, as I said, we are at a tourney. Then we play to win.


Some people have fun by winning. Do you NEED to deliberately cripple yourself in every casual game you play? Why don't you just write good lists and play them all the time, instead of creating some kind of artificial divide between when it's ethically acceptable to bring a "spamming" list and when it isn't? Why CHOOSE to play in a completely sub-optimal way when you don't have to?


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Sethis said:


> Some people have fun by winning. Do you NEED to deliberately cripple yourself in every casual game you play? Why don't you just write good lists and play them all the time, instead of creating some kind of artificial divide between when it's ethically acceptable to bring a "spamming" list and when it isn't? Why CHOOSE to play in a completely sub-optimal way when you don't have to?


Of course some (every) player gets fun by winning. BUT. 
I'm not crippling myself if i decide to play a fluffy list. 
I'm getting fun in painting something i like, in creating a background or even only using a fun (for me) background story for a list.
I would never bring, say, a fabius bile style list int a tourney, because I know all too well i couldn't win not even a game. But to say that i'm crippling myself... is like to say that everytime you do not take the "auto include" units of your codex you are limiting yourself. For me it is not so. I'm having fun. And I can assure you that i have more fun with 15 spawns than with 3 heldrakes. 
I simply cannot understand why you say that if you don not win you cannot have fun and if you do not exploit any and each way to win you are crippling yourself...of course, as i said before, if i am in a tourney, i am effectively crippling myself. 
But if i go down to the club and i want to have fun i'll play with wathever list gives me a good feeling playing with! 
That means that sometimes i'd want to play with 3 heldrakes and 3 forgefiends for a good Dark Mechanicus army. Does this make me a dick? No. Because i'm not playing every single day with that list. Should i begin to go to the club every single day with that list...well...someone could argue that i'm a dick. And i would agree. 
Moreover, using your assumption to list building means that you are going to see only 2 different lists per codex. 
Oh, the variety, the overwelming fun of playing with/against an endless amount of the same 2 lists.
For me only this is sufficient enough to avoid, sometimes, the most powerful build you can have in a codex. I don't know if that has ever happend to you: to have fun even losing, or tying a game.
So, to summarize, for me: 
-Fun is not always winning at all cost 
-A list that amuses me is better than the strongest list I can build
-Always showing up with the strongest list is boring, unchallenging and dickish.
-If you have fun only in winning a game...well i guess i can let you win, you need it more than me. :laugh: (not an attack, just a joke)
-A funny game is such for both palyers, not just for one.

Cheers


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Sethis said:


> Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support the statement. If a professional football team plays vs an amateur team, the amateurs are going to get thrashed. It doesn't mean football is inherently unfair. It just means one team spends more time training to be better at it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


because the game is not about just you.
As they say, it takes two to tango
But then why should a player who wants to win give a fuck about being a good sport.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Sethis,
My response to your thinking here is the same as it was in your soft scoring thread.

GW didn't produce a game conducive to serious and balanced competitive play. The authors of every edition of the game have maintained the purpose is fun, creativity, cooperation, and narrative. Besides which the necessities of sales and development cycles preclude a totally evenhanded approach.

In other words army lists are not written with a "must bring" in mind. That value statement is actually rather alien to GW's stated motives and intentions. Given that, it behooves the players to honestly discuss what kind of a game they want to have. Fielding anything other than the most points optimized list is not by definition playing to a lower standard. That would only be true if the measure of a good game was strictly how competitive it was.


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

I think I am going to have to go with Sethis on this.

True you may not be crippling yourself. And also true that you are having fun doing what you want to do. However a lot of you have stated that you are having fun yet you are complaining about people who bring what is essentially annihilation armies and destroy any and all opposition no matter the cost (how are you having fun then, are you still having fun?) because that is the way they have fun.

I guess what it comes down to is you have the right to call them names like dick and showboater and they have the right to call you names like peaches and loser.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Sethis said:


> Some people have fun by winning. Do you NEED to deliberately cripple yourself in every casual game you play? Why don't you just write good lists and play them all the time, instead of creating some kind of artificial divide between when it's ethically acceptable to bring a "spamming" list and when it isn't? Why CHOOSE to play in a completely sub-optimal way when you don't have to?


Because some people don't have £120 to spend on plastic dragons?

Midnight


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

MidnightSun said:


> Because some people don't have £120 to spend on plastic dragons?
> 
> Midnight


Plus some of us think the model is shit
Why am I going to buy 3 crappy models just because its a powerful choice?
Why should I sacrifice theme and enjoyment for power and lack of opponents?
Why should I copy a list written by a brainless spamming cockbag who posts it and plays it so that he feels superior to everyone else because he can best my toys in a game by using no brain at all?
Yeah sounds fun
NOT

Like I said, your taking a powerful list so you have a guaranteed victory, your not good at the game, and your not good at making lists, don't delude yourself into thinking your gods gift to 40k just because your able to count to 3, don't think your army deserves to be worshipped by everyone because it lacks any thought to buy or use.
Your spamming to win, your spamming to have fun for yourself, your spamming because you have nothing but contempt for your opponents, your spamming because you don't give a fuck about anyone except you, your spamming because your too stupid to think of how to win.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

To borrow the earlier sports example, this is like one team expecting a scrimmage and another a world championship. Or two teams coming to the field one which can afford far better players.

I think a lot of this discussion is really academic. As it has been pointed out in many previous threads, a 3 Heldrake (or equivalent) list is only a problem if the players haven't talked about what sort of a game they want before hand.

It is probably just as boring for sethis to table a player who is fielding an army of Eldar pastoralists with wraithbone pitchforks and the odd space cow, as it is for the same player to set up facing 3 Heldrakes.

Both players are responsible for communicating what type of hand they want to play.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

neferhet said:


> I'm not crippling myself if i decide to play a fluffy list.


Maybe not, but you are making a conscious choice to play a less competitive game than another, alternative list built using the same codex. That is your decision, and therefore the consequences (you getting tabled) are on your head, not your opponents. Blaming them for being "cheesy" when you're running a 120 cultist Typhus list (or equivalent) is not just childish, it's absurd.



neferhet said:


> I simply cannot understand why you say that if you don not win you cannot have fun and if you do not exploit any and each way to win you are crippling yourself


That's not what I said at all. I said that SOME players find winning to be fun, and a significant reason to play the game, while others find winning to be completely secondary to engaging in a social storytelling experience. I make no value judgement on which is "better" because it's a completely subjective matter. When I use "cripple" and "disadvantage" then I'm speaking in pure gaming and mathematical terms, not the value of the game itself.



Stella Cadente said:


> because the game is not about just you.
> As they say, it takes two to tango
> But then why should a player who wants to win give a fuck about being a good sport.


So following your logic in your previous post, your idea of the best way to play is for each player to write the list for his opponent? That way each player is fighting against a list that they don't mind playing against? Because you're essentially saying that my opponent should be allowed to control to a greater or lesser degree what models I put on the table.

And again, you're making no distinction between bad sportsmanship and competitive gaming. If every competitive gamer was a bad sport, then there would be a lot of prizes going spare at events for the Sportsmanship Award...



Kreuger said:


> GW didn't produce a game conducive to serious and balanced competitive play. The authors of every edition of the game have maintained the purpose is fun, creativity, cooperation, and narrative.


So in that vein, why is it ok for casual players to belittle, criticize, and otherwise bitch about competitive players instead of working within that atmosphere of fun and co-operation? Why are people more receptive to those complaints than complaints about "I wish those fucking fluff bunnies would grow a pair and learn to actually use tactics". Why aren't both ends of the spectrum more tolerant, if that's the flavour of the game system?

On a side note, what the designers of a product intend, and what that product eventually gets used for are not always the same. Does that mean that someone using a product for an unintended purpose should not be allowed to do so? Is their "fun" any less valid than the "fun" obtained by using the product as recommended by the manufacturer? I mean, I strap fireworks to a staff and spin it around my body at bonfire night. Obviously fireworks aren't designed to be used that way, but I have a hell of a lot of fun, and so does anyone watching me. Does someone then have the right to say "That's not the way they were intended to be used, my way is better"?



Kreuger said:


> Given that, it behooves the players to honestly discuss what kind of a game they want to have. Fielding anything other than the most points optimized list is not by definition playing to a lower standard. That would only be true if the measure of a good game was strictly how competitive it was.


Which is exactly what I recommended in my post. That people bitch less, and communicate/compromise more. The point of the thread is that people seem unwilling to do that, and assume that because you play competitively, you are a dick to be avoided.



MidnightSun said:


> Because some people don't have £120 to spend on plastic dragons


Come on. I've seen people with collections totalling tens of thousands of pounds who wouldn't know a competitive list if it shat in their bed, and people who have to buy everything off ebay, like myself, because they can't afford NIB prices even from Wayland, but still manage to win tournaments regularly. Money is not a barrier to competitive play. You just need to be willing to shop second hand, convert heavily, or even proxy if you have to. But that's equally true if you wanted to play a "fluffy" Elysian Drop Troops list, because :laugh: FW prices, right? You can spend as much or as little as you want on this hobby, and it has nothing to do with how well you play on the table.



> It is probably just as boring for sethis to table a player who is fielding an army of Eldar pastoralists with wraithbone pitchforks and the odd space cow, as it is for the same player to set up facing 3 Heldrakes.


Correct. Which is why I routinely set myself a 100-400pt handicap in casual games at the local GW. It's the only way I can make the game fun for both of us.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Kreuger said:


> It is probably just as boring for sethis to table a player who is fielding an army of Eldar pastoralists with wraithbone pitchforks and the odd space cow, as it is for the same player to set up facing 3 Heldrakes.


True, but saying 'You brought Kherudruakh and 30 Mandrakes, you're such a jerk!' doesn't have nearly the same ring to it.

I think it's because fighting melee Footdar is boring, but not because you sit there and watch your models get pulled off the table while you have no counter to what your opponent does. 3 Heldrakes is difficult for some armies to counter with an infinite amount of money.

Midnight


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

Insulting people for the type of list they choose is fairly stupid whatever side of the fence your sat on. Being a dick rests on more than the type of list you build same as being a fluff gamer doesn't automatically qualify you for a sainthood.
Yes some lists are overpowered against the majority of codex's and as a result are the ones that are commonly seen for whatever reason but the Necron flying circus list that my opponent uses while a dickish list that gives me little chance of a win is still visually nice to look at and used by a really nice bloke, Yet one of the other players who plays space marines badly and gives little tactical challenge acts like a 2 year old and leaves me irritated beyond belief.
Being a dick is not exclusive to the list you use and arguing one way or the other will go on as long as the hobby exists.


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

neilbatte said:


> Being a dick is not exclusive to the list you use


I completely agree. This one guy at my local club, the most annoying person to play ever. He triple measures everything, gets dicky about obvious calls, and generally shows no respect for his opponents, and yet he is one of the worst players in the club and has few remotely competitive lists. Another friend of mine plays very competitive Tau but is one of the nicest people I have ever met.

That being said, I can understand how competitive lists versus casual gamers can get very annoying, but I just try to see it as a challenge to be overcome - winning with my semi-competitive tac list versus their "cheese," if you will. Some people don't share that view, but generally, at least where I am, people are either competitive or are ok with playing against people who are or don't play against people who are. It works out fairly beautifully.


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> Because some people don't have £120 to spend on plastic dragons?
> 
> Midnight


Expensive game...



Stella Cadente said:


> Plus some of us think the model is shit
> Why am I going to buy 3 crappy models just because its a powerful choice?
> Why should I sacrifice theme and enjoyment for power and lack of opponents?
> Why should I copy a list written by a brainless spamming cockbag who posts it and plays it so that he feels superior to everyone else because he can best my toys in a game by using no brain at all?
> ...


Still sounds like excuses to me. Though I guess I can sort of understand where you are coming from. When my friends and I have played Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance there is this one person who always builds a bazillion tiny units and sends them over. It is like a Tyranid rush or Zerg rush, it does irritate people a little. They usually end up taking a few people out right off the bat.



JAMOB said:


> I completely agree. This one guy at my local club, the most annoying person to play ever. He triple measures everything, gets dicky about obvious calls, and generally shows no respect for his opponents, and yet he is one of the worst players in the club and has few remotely competitive lists. Another friend of mine plays very competitive Tau but is one of the nicest people I have ever met.
> 
> That being said, I can understand how competitive lists versus casual gamers can get very annoying, but I just try to see it as a challenge to be overcome - winning with my semi-competitive tac list versus their "cheese," if you will. Some people don't share that view, but generally, at least where I am, people are either competitive or are ok with playing against people who are or don't play against people who are. It works out fairly beautifully.


Question. When you guys go to play is there a list or something? I mean you are set to play a certain person or do you just sign in on a sheet and then play? I was wondering why you cannot just refuse to play a certain person or choose to play someone else.

I have never played a game myself. i think though I caught a few glimpses of one being played when I was in Seattle once at a Wizards Of The Coast store.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

I think comparing 40k to a sport is silly, because there is so much emphasis in the rulebook on forging a narrative and co-operation between players and being a good sport, it is abundantly clear it is not (and never was in any edition I can remember) designed for high-competitive gaming. It isn't anything like a sport. 

That said, if you wanna use sport analogies, if a big professional football team played an tiny amateur football team, they wouldn't bring their best players and play as if they were in a cup final would they? They would bring a bunch of rookies and try out new tactics and players. And I think the same applies to 40k, as most people do actually take it easy on new players or players who are known at their club to be a non-competitive players...Unless they are complete assholes, of course. 

And actually, that kind of lends itself to another point: Most people at gaming clubs know each other, and if not, I think when you organise a game most people will ask each other if they are bringing a fun list, experimental list, or if they want a competitive game, or a list to test out for an upcoming tournament, and so forth...
Fair play to the guy everyone knows at one of our clubs: He makes it known to anyone who asks for a game that he is a highly competitive player and is only interested in tournies and practicing for tournies. Everyone respects him for being this honest. 

I think generally speaking most people at gaming clubs are quite honest about their lists and what they want out of games. Most people are also sporting and are considerate of the other player...At least that is how it is in my hometown. If people are obnoxious and inconsiderate they will soon find they cannot get games, as they gain a bad reputation. 

So to the person who said something like "Why should I care about my opponent's enjoyment?" Wow. I would never in a million years want to play you and find that really unsporting and selfish (because it is, no 2 ways about it). If you were honest about how what type of list you want to bring I would be completely cool with it, but I doubt you would be since you have stated you don't see why you should care about your fellow gamers. But each to their own I suppose.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Expensive game...


So only the people who can drop £120 on plastic dragons deserve to compete?

Wow.

Midnight


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

MidnightSun said:


> So only the people who can drop £120 on plastic dragons deserve to compete?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Midnight


Well of course durrrr, its a social status thing, not just a silly game
The main factor of 40k now is wallethammer, the biggest wallet wins


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Sethis said:


> Maybe not, but you are making a conscious choice to play a less competitive game than another, alternative list built using the same codex. That is your decision, and therefore the consequences (you getting tabled) are on your head, not your opponents. Blaming them for being "cheesy" when you're running a 120 cultist Typhus list (or equivalent) is not just childish, it's absurd.
> 
> Of course I am, because as I said in my last post, running a competitive list means reducing list building options to a fraction. So even if sometimes I do play competitve i get bored very soon by the hyper-effective lists. And then, moreover, it is my fault if I bring said fluffy list into a club where i know the game is competitive, but it is your fault if you bring invariably a compettive list against people you know to play for fun
> 
> ...


All of this said: no one should be allowed to call names on anyone . You play the way you like to play. Its all a matter of finding the right opponent, one that shares your view of the game. And you will be fine.


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> So only the people who can drop £120 on plastic dragons deserve to compete? Wow.





Stella Cadente said:


> Well of course durrrr, its a social status thing, not just a silly game
> The main factor of 40k now is wallethammer, the biggest wallet wins


As in anything the better equipped, trained and better prepared reap the benefits.

Not everyone can afford an Aston Martin or a Maserati does that make it unfair for those who can to own them? If you could afford to eat at a 5 star exclusive restaurant would you or would you eat at Outback Steakhouse? If an animal is hit by a car and the people cannot afford to pay for the surgery should it be done for free? Should the people have thought to save up money for an emergency as part of their being a responsible pet owner and then should they have even had a pet or waited until they could afford it? Should people feel badly because they are flying first class? Do people who fly coach or normal feel badly about flying that price tag of seat? Who do they blame the people flying first class or themselves for not either making more money or saving up more for their trip? Are people who fly on private jets then supposed to feel badly about those who do not? And do the people flying first class feel about them the same way the coach flyers feel about first class passengers?


If it needs to change then cap the load-outs, make it so only a certain amount of money can be spent on them.

Or people play against others such as themselves who have the capital to spend on what they want.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

If you go to an amateur sporting event and spend millions on a pro team to win every game against the other town lads who brought their mates for a kickaround after work, then yeah, that kinda makes you a massive dick.

Midnight


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Those are pretty shit comparisons
Ok bloke A buys an Aston martin bloke B an old ford fiesta
The Aston gets bloke A to point Z the ford gets bloke B to point Z
So bloke A wasted money to do the same as bloke B

Bloke A can afford a 5 star meal and bloke B can only afford a steakhouse
Bloke A is fed, bloke B is fed (and probably eats more since resturant portions are tiny)
So bloke B is better off than bloke A who spent 5x more

If Bloke A has his pet hurt and must pay for the bills and bloke B payed for pet insurance (which is cheaper than 1 lump sum) then bloke B wins.

Want me to carry on?


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> If you go to an amateur sporting event and spend millions on a pro team...


Pretty sure the two are separated. If it is not than that is a flaw inherent with the game, Games Workshops, the people who put on the competitions or the rules themselves.

Pro bodybuilders do not compete with amateur bodybuilders until that amateur has earned his/her pro card.



Stella Cadente said:


> Those are pretty shit comparisons
> Ok bloke A buys an Aston martin bloke B an old ford fiesta
> The Aston gets bloke A to point Z the ford gets bloke B to point Z
> So bloke A wasted money to do the same as bloke B
> ...


You can continue all you want. What sense is that making? Are you trying to make my point for me? You are looking at it as the destination and not the ride. Walking gets you to the same point as well...

Thing is that there are certain privileges that come with being able to afford things. If I dine in a 5 star exclusive restaurant I am most likely doing it because of the atmosphere as the food being better is a matter of taste, it could be Wolfgang Pucks actual restaurant and the food could be no better than Bertolli's from Safeway.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Not everyone can afford an Aston Martin or a Maserati does that make it unfair for those who can to own them?


It does if they are competing in motor racing.

That's why they have limitations on modifications that can be made to vehicles and divide the sport into different classes of vehicles.

If you win a race because you were driving a Ferrari and the other competitors were in Smart Cars ..... what kind of competition would that be? What kind of victory would you have just won ? If you were telling every one how "competitive" you are would it ring true or be tending towards the "dick" end of the scale?

A TRULY "competitive" player will look at his opponents list and take out anything from his own list that gives him an overt advantage, why? because that is the definition of competitive. 

There has to be some form of actual competition and Ferrari v Smart Car isn't.


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> It does if they are competing in motor racing.
> 
> That's why they have limitations on modifications that can be made to vehicles and divide the sport into different classes of vehicles.
> 
> ...


that is why I said this:



WaLkAwaY said:


> Pretty sure the two are separated. If it is not than that is a flaw inherent with the game, Games Workshops, the people who put on the competitions or the rules themselves.
> 
> Pro bodybuilders do not compete with amateur bodybuilders until that amateur has earned his/her pro card.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Pretty piss weak to hide behind "oh it's GW's fault for not balancing the game", they have in fact done so by stipulating the "Spirit of the Game" which most "competitive" players choose to ignore.
Like I said if you want to claim to be a competitive player then you have to actually compete. Running a list that hopelessly out classes you opponent isn't competitive.


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Pretty piss weak to hide behind "oh it's GW's fault for not balancing the game", they have in fact done so by stipulating the "Spirit of the Game" which most "competitive" players choose to ignore.
> Like I said if you want to claim to be a competitive player then you have to actually compete. Running a list that hopelessly out classes you opponent isn't competitive.


Are the two separated? Can a pro player compete against an amateur player? And when I mentioned GW I meant it as if they are in charge of what happens during meets, challenges or competitions and the two (pro/am) are not separated then it is their fault.

I am just throwing things out there. You all are the experts, you know the rules and play the game to those rules. I have never played the board game before so I am looking to you all for your take on it. From what you have stated it seems either that the management of competitions or meets need some serious work. So who is in charge of that? I mean how big is this are there smaller competitions to determine the best in a county and then those meet nationally to duke it out and determine the winner of the grand prize? Is there a grand prize? From what I remember from D&D the competitions were run like a ladder, however last years grand prize winner could not just take on Joe Startup from noname city of 5 people, until that guy had earned a spot to run with the big dogs.

I guess maybe I do not understand the whole thing then. If there is no regulation and a pro can go in and destroy an amateur at a competition then yes that is not sportsmanship or good fun at all. However the question still remains on who is in charge of the regulations that allow that to happen?


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> A TRULY "competitive" player will look at his opponents list and take out anything from his own list that gives him an overt advantage, why? because that is the definition of competitive.


This isn't entirely true. You can still be a competitive player without gimping your own list, its just that a lot of your games will be really easy. Putting a handicap on yourself has nothing to do with being a competitive player rather it has more to do with wanting a challenge. These are two distinct things.

But why is it automatically the competitive players obligation to scale his list down, rather than another players obligation to scale his list up? Games workshop gives everyone the opportunity to build whatever list he wants. It's not the competitive players fault that someone might not have enough money to buy a Heldrake or like the model. That player knew what kind of money-intense game 40k was when he started. Also proxying. I personalky have no problem nor have i ever played against someone who had a problem with proxying. 

I play competitive and do not typically scale my list unless it was decided before that the game we were playing is fun. So i always give my opponent to proxy whatever list they want to be the strongest. I prefer to challenge myself at the highest levels of list strength rather than gimp and play with weaker lists


----------



## Silens (Dec 26, 2010)

I think some people might be missing as well that £120 isn't a huge amount of money in the grand scale of 40k. To get any decent army you should be prepared to spend at least £150. Heck, I'm getting a 1000 point Tau army soon which is about £220 RRP from GW and it's not really surprising to me that it costs as much. Just to start the game most people need to spend about £100, maybe more if they are buying a rulebook and all of the equipment. £70 battleforce, £10 HQ, £30 codex and then anywhere from £10 to £60, or more, on playing equipment (From dice and measuring sticks to terrain and the rulebook).


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Actually to start the game from scratch costs from £150-200, unless your getting DV, and yes £120 is allot of money to spend on 40k on 3 models, no matter the size of them, you have to factor in allot of things, for example £120 can buy allot of things that will give allot more enjoyment and value than 3 models, I know in my financial situation it would take me 3-4 months to get them, or I can buy something else every fortnight


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I could buy 30 Kabalite Warriors and 3 Raiders for £120, and I sure as hell know what'd give me more enjoyment to build and paint. Sure, £120 is expensive. Sure, £120 is not mind-boggling in this hobby. But for 3 vehicles, when I could get 3 almost equally sized vehicles and 30 Infantry for the price, I think there's something wrong.

Midnight


----------



## WaLkAwaY (Dec 5, 2012)

Are unpainted figures and pieces (not sure what to call them) frowned or looked down upon?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> This isn't entirely true. You can still be a competitive player without gimping your own list, its just that a lot of your games will be really easy. Putting a handicap on yourself has nothing to do with being a competitive player rather it has more to do with wanting a challenge. These are two distinct things.
> 
> But why is it automatically the competitive players obligation to scale his list down, rather than another players obligation to scale his list up? Games workshop gives everyone the opportunity to build whatever list he wants. It's not the competitive players fault that someone might not have enough money to buy a Heldrake or like the model. That player knew what kind of money-intense game 40k was when he started. Also proxying. I personalky have no problem nor have i ever played against someone who had a problem with proxying.
> 
> I play competitive and do not typically scale my list unless it was decided before that the game we were playing is fun. So i always give my opponent to proxy whatever list they want to be the strongest. I prefer to challenge myself at the highest levels of list strength rather than gimp and play with weaker lists


This post more than any other highlights why "Yes Johnny if you take 3 Helldrakes you are potentially a dick."

If you play a game where your forces are massively superior to you opponents there is no competitive element to the game. If you think that makes you some kind of "competitive" player then you might be a dick.

If you play the game from the perspective that it is up to everyone else to make the game fun and/or competitive then you might be a dick.

Forgetting specific powerful units for a moment, let's say you turned up for a game and you had 3000 points and your opponent can only muster 1000, maybe he is building a new army.

You can:
demand to play your 3000 and he his 1000 = dick, ho hum you won.
choose 1000 out of your 3000 = not a dick, normal, COMPETITIVE game
play 3000 and he 1000 but you pick a scenario, a fighting withdrawal for example, where each of you has the ability to win despite the points disparity = awesome guy, cool game.

The situation of spamming uber units is no different.



WaLkAwaY said:


> Are unpainted figures and pieces (not sure what to call them) frowned or looked down upon?


Depends on the organisers. There was another thread on that a little while ago where it was suggested that "soft" scoring has no place in a "competitive" environment.
Various organisers have their own take on it. GW's current Throne of Skulls rules require a fully painted and based army if you want to play. They give out prizes for the presentation as a separate thing. My preference would be for that style.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Are unpainted figures and pieces (not sure what to call them) frowned or looked down upon?


Yes.

Midnight


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Are unpainted figures and pieces (not sure what to call them) frowned or looked down upon?


Well down here yes, and damn right they should be, we encourage the kids in our group to paint and they do and they enjoy it, so when you get adults with unpainted models (which oddly is always the competitive camp) its piss taking.


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

WaLkAwaY said:


> Are unpainted figures and pieces (not sure what to call them) frowned or looked down upon?


Not really down here at my Gamestore. Paint on models takes a back seat to having fun while playing the game. I prefer that than absolutely having to have paint on my models before I can play. I can neither find the drive to paint, nor do I have enough to paint my models. I'd rather not be kept from playing a game because of that.....


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

My FLGS ethos on unpainted models I think is perfect:

You can proxy and you can use unpainted models, as it's recognised some people struggle with costs and/or want to test out units before they commit to buying. However, if a person continues to use unpainted and/or models frequently over a few months they will be told to sort it out. 
Usually even tournaments will allow proxies, but are limited to one unit only. Unpainted models are also accepted, but you get more points for painted models to make it fair on everyone else who has made the effort.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

It's not like painting is hard, I got 52 English civil war infantry/cavalry and cannons painted and based in 1 day


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> This post more than any other highlights why "Yes Johnny if you take 3 Helldrakes you are potentially a dick."
> 
> If you play a game where your forces are massively superior to you opponents there is no competitive element to the game. If you think that makes you some kind of "competitive" player then you might be a dick.
> 
> ...


The word potentially you used in your first sentence is very key. I agree with you 100% that if you show up with 3 Heldrakes to an already agreed upon friendly game, the. You are a dick. But what if you show up with 3 Heldrakes to a tournament or agreed with your opponent to bring your strongest lists? This does not make you a dick.

The whole reason for this thread was to find out why people automatically assume that you are a dick for bringing 3 Drakes and I think we've established that if youre playing a friendly game.

I think now the point of the thread could be changed to, why do people automatically assume everyone else is playing friendly games? Because if youre bringing 3 Heldrakes its only dickish in a friendly game, not a competitive one.

I think I wasn't clear when I said scale down. I didn't meant that I would field more points than my opponent (agreed: douche move). I meant that I wouldnt weaken the strength of my list for whatever points we agreed upon, unless it was decided by both of us to run fun or fluffy. But keep in mind, for some of us competitive lists are fun. Also I run CSM, our 'fun' lists do generally pretty terrible against other armies fun lists so thay ends up not being a great game. But that's not really the point.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> This post more than any other highlights why "Yes Johnny if you take 3 Helldrakes you are potentially a dick."
> 
> If you play a game where your forces are massively superior to you opponents there is no competitive element to the game. If you think that makes you some kind of "competitive" player then you might be a dick.
> 
> ...


The word potentially you used in your first sentence is very key. I agree with you 100% that if you show up with 3 Heldrakes to an already agreed upon friendly game, the. You are a dick. But what if you show up with 3 Heldrakes to a tournament or agreed with your opponent to bring your strongest lists? This does not make you a dick.

The whole reason for this thread was to find out why people automatically assume that you are a dick for bringing 3 Drakes and I think we've established that if youre playing a friendly game.

I think now the point of the thread could be changed to, why do people automatically assume everyone else is playing friendly games? Because if youre bringing 3 Heldrakes its only dickish in a friendly game, not a competitive one.

I think I wasn't clear when I said scale down. I didn't meant that I would field more points than my opponent (agreed: douche move). I meant that I wouldnt weaken the strength of my list for whatever points we agreed upon, unless it was decided by both of us to run fun or fluffy. But keep in mind, for some of us competitive lists are fun. Also I run CSM, our 'fun' lists do generally pretty terrible against other armies fun lists so thay ends up not being a great game. But that's not really the point.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> It's not like painting is hard, I got 52 English civil war infantry/cavalry and cannons painted and based in 1 day


It's not hard for you.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> It's not hard for you.


And to this point painting is hard for some, being competitive may be hard for others.

And while I know people who prefer to play less competitive games I don't know anyone who prefers to play with or against unpainted armies.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> It's not hard for you.


Spray blue
Paint details
Wash
*shrug*


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Yeah it may not be hard for you.

But you know, some people have other commitments; kids to look after, businesses to run, shifts to work, are studying etc...Or are just slow at painting.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

So?, paint in parts then like others do.
Monday paint boots, gloves, pouches
Tuesday paint clothing
Wednesday paint flesh and belts
Thursday paint weapons
Friday wash
Saturday base
Sunday varnish
Seriously it ain't hard, one guy down here has a job that uses up most of the day, kids to look after and still got 1000+ Zulu painted for a game, painting really isn't hard, only if you make it hard, then that's your fault, finding excuses is....well no excuse.

We have kids down here with school, homework, chores and early nights, yet some have multiple painted armies,,one young lad has 4000pts of painted skaven and an ever increasing painted marine army (he is also quite a damn good player)

An hour a day is not beyond the realm of possibilities, heck you have time to post on forums and play the latest videogames and go to watch some movie in a cinema or get pissed on a Friday night, you have time to paint toys.


----------



## Loli (Mar 26, 2009)

Dear god this thread is still going, wow just wow.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> I think now the point of the thread could be changed to, why do people automatically assume everyone else is playing friendly games? Because if youre bringing 3 Heldrakes its only dickish in a friendly game, not a competitive one.


Because people expect people to take hardcore tournament lists to tournaments. If there was an event for people to bring non-competitive armies (presumably run by Jervis, where everyone got a certificate saying 'Winner' at the end no matter the result of the games) and no tournaments, this mindset would change, but until then, people expect tournament lists to be at tournaments and nowhere else.

Midnight


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

Why does a fluffy list have to suck? I can quite happily ran say, a night lords air support list, or a tau list based on shadowsuns assault on that fortress world, hey look spam riptides, I'm a dick suddenly! Or a tau air insertion force, look spam barracudas, still fluffy


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

kiro the avenger! said:


> Why does a fluffy list have to suck? I can quite happily ran say, a night lords air support list, or a tau list based on shadowsuns assault on that fortress world, hey look spam riptides, I'm a dick suddenly! Or a tau air insertion force, look spam barracudas, still fluffy


Because try making a competitive list based around 30 Mandrakes and Kherudruakh the Decapitator. Oh, yeah, you can't, because that's an insane amount of points locked up in fragile melee units and a uselessly useless combat HQ, all of whom start in reserves.

You *can* make fluffy lists that are powerful, and indeed all competitive lists are fluffy (40k has infinite scope - a Chaos Warband with 3 Heldrakes probably isn't exactly common, but the Dark Mechanicum churn out thousands if not millions of Heldrakes, some Chaos Lord's probably got his hands on a cache of them. Probably an Iron Warriors Warsmith). But in this context, 'fluffy' lists are armies based around a certain unit or event specified in the Black Library novels or codices.

Midnight


----------



## Jonny B (Aug 22, 2013)

Straken's_Fist said:


> Or are just slow at painting.


That's me


----------

