# Highly amusing Warseer post.



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

You guys have got to read this.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1288563#post1288563

Some people eh?


----------



## Wrath of Khaine (Dec 29, 2006)

I can see where both players are coming from, but I agree to use a winning army in a tournament. Why the hell spend money to lose? Maxed cannons is rather sick, but I've seen worse at tourneys. It seems the other chap has been womped by asscan armies, due to his crying-in-post. How does abusing children have anything to do with maxing out parts of a 40k army list? ROFL... Someone needs psychiatric help.

-Khaine-

Good show Jez.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

That is rather amusing, the idea that someone would go to a competition of any kind and not try their best to win is just silly. The idea that you can't have fun with a good list is also silly. It does seem like he was crying in his beer because he gets whooped far too often. Comparing "abusing" the game to child abuse is just retarded. tatical marines with las cannons should be charging throught the game eh? Because Blood Angels are brainless idiots who wouldn't even think of moving tactically while covered by heavy weapons fire. :roll:


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

some people just need a slap every now and then


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

You doing the GT this year cccp_one?


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Personally, I am not a fan of 'win at all costs' list when in a friendly, home club type of environment as it can sometimes lead to arguements and such. However, that being said, I am all for that kind of list at a tournament. Tournament are ALL ABOUT winning and there is no other real point to go to one. After all, if you are just looking to have fun they do so at your local club and not pay for a ticket or worry about scores. In a tournament, any list goes and the point is winning, nothing else.

Not to say that you can't have fun either as you most likely will as long as you aren't a whining fop that can't take competition.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

I love facing win at all costs lists on my home turf, it allows me to be prepared for anything I might face at a tournament or other social 40k event where I'm playing against folks I don't know. Some would consider my Ork list to be unfluffy and "too competative" but then a lot of people don't consider the Orks to be competative at all. I always want to face the hardest, most challenging, most difficult opponent I can.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> Tournament are ALL ABOUT winning and there is no other real point to go to one. After all, if you are just looking to have fun they do so at your local club and not pay for a ticket or worry about scores. In a tournament, any list goes and the point is winning, nothing else.


I agree, no-one should go to a tournament expecting to have fun...that'd be silly.

Just messing, have to agree about 'Tournament's' in general.
My only concern is that 40k, unlike Football, Chess, etc was never designed for competitive play in a 'high stakes' environment. 

Simply put not all Codex's are equal- it's pretty obvious to spot which are and aren't. Unlike chess where both sides are identical, or football were both sides must rely on skill and fitness, etc.

In 40k, two equally skilled players can show up for a game- and dependent on army it is often very easy to predict who will win. Put that into a serious tournament situation and the outcome is obvious- people will choose the army that wins. And facing nothing but IW's, BA, AssCannon Spam- is boring, I know that's not a good enough excuse but it is for me.

I do go to GT's and have a lot of fun- but that is because a fair few people don't take the WAAC mentality. They try to win, they bring good lists- but they inherently handicap themselves by not taking the 'uber' lists like IW's, etc. Why do this if it's WAAC? Why not just collect IW's or Ass Spam?

Because there's more to it than WAAC for many. Winning a knife fight with a sword doesn't really prove your knife fighting abilities.

I'm not defending CrystalMeth, or blaming those with a WAAC attitude, but it should be pretty clear that 40k cannot be compared to chess or sports, or racing, unless everybody plays the 'uber' lists- which number only 2-3.

I'd like to be optimistic and say that GW has cottoned on to the fact 40k is becoming more and more a tournament thing (rather than a story-driven wargame), and are balancing new Codex's accordingly (Eldar for example). Though I will only be sure this is true when Chaos (IW's) and BA are re-done.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

"You;re not supposed to win, you;re supposed to have fun...so hurry up and lose so I can have fun!"


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

"A tournament is a *competition* involving a relatively large number of *competitors*, all participating in a single sport or game"

The above definition is from wikipedia the emphasis is mine. The guy was clearly a bampot. I am about to search warseer for his other posts to cheer myself up!


----------



## Elric of Melnibone (Feb 9, 2007)

There is a large community at Warhammer.org that believes in not playing to win.

I saw one post where a WPS regular suggested to a tournament newbie to go to the 40k doubles GT, lose the first 2 games and then spend the rest of the time playing with the nice people lower down and having fun

:roll: :roll:


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

being a horrendously useless gamer, i adore battles in every chape or form. at some point a friend (a good gamer) and i plan to attend a 40k doubles tourney where i plan to wind him up at every opportunity by being spectacularly awful, through no fault of my own...


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Elric of Melnibone said:


> There is a large community at Warhammer.org that believes in not playing to win.
> 
> I saw one post where a WPS regular suggested to a tournament newbie to go to the 40k doubles GT, lose the first 2 games and then spend the rest of the time playing with the nice people lower down and having fun
> 
> :roll: :roll:


Oh, yes. They certainly aren't allowed to have fun in an entirely mutually inclusive manner. How dare they try to enjoy the game and not the numbers on the paper at the end of it.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

We've established this Uber- you don't fork out money, paint up your toy soldiers and go to a tournament to have fun, that would be silly- :lol: 

I stand by my viewpoint that 40k tournaments could be fun even with everyone WAAC- if all the Codex's were on an equal footing. As it stands there are just 1 or 2 armies, with 1-2 builds that stand high above the others.

So if everyone goes to tournaments with the WAAC mentality- that is all we would see. Clearly a lot of people don't- are they all stupid for wanting to have fun, with an army they like, whilst still trying to win.

Or put another way, if winning is all that matters- only one guy will enjoy the event.


----------



## Skcuzzlebumm (Dec 21, 2006)

I think (from experience) the big decider is a persons attitude. I keep saying this again and again when this kind of topic comes up. I used to play with amazingly hardcore armies and try to win everything, had lots of fun in the process, ok you'd get a miss match where your opponent could do nothing but sorry it is a tourney, ppl play to win. The big thing is i never rubbed thier faces in it and never tried to push anything, still had fun, even when they got battered they were still jovial about it.

Now i make nice theme'd lists, like hordes of nids, lots of termies, all meched marines etc. Some of these list are brutal vs the right person, othertimes i get brutalised. Never sluk, never moan always enjoy myself and make sure my opponent gets to enjoy it to.

If someone wants to plya to win, fine don't be a dick about it. Just like ppl can be dicks when they believe they are superior as they "play for fun".

Ammount of times of heard those words from utter cock noses makes me weep, they try to hide thier failures as a decent person capable of having fun behind this wall of been of so fair in the game.

Sorry the army selectio n is irrelavant if your a nob.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

I'm not against people who want to enjoy the game their way, I'm just against those who won't let them, whether that be the person who _must_ win, even if it means they spend hours a day practising, the person who seeks out new players so they don't even have to think to destroy them, the people who call a judge over for every second bloody movement, or the people who actively seek to make other people have a crap time of it. If it just so happens that these mentalities are more common in those favour an extremist style of play, then that's just the way it works.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Ironically i'm less competitive at GT's than I am at our gaming group.

I tend to let things be and try to be the sportsman at tournaments through fear of looking like a twat.

I am a sore loser but tend to mask my feelings better. Not sure if that'd be the case on table 1 game 6 though....


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok so like a few lads on this forum, im a regular GT player. This year i went with a different attitude from normal. In the years that i've been heading south of the border up until this year i've always taken silly/themed armies! This year i took what the guy in the warseer post would have described as a beardy/cheesy army. I took marine's with 6 assault cannons (2 tornadoes + 2 units of termies). Funnily enough, this was the only time i've never qualified for the final. Primarily i take assault cannons for weight of fire. My dice rolling with them is so bad, that in a game against Joe Sturge, i actually killed this Carnifex with storm bolters! My A/C's were soul destroyingly rubbish all weekend! In fact i think i only rendered 4 times in the 6 games i played! 

So that will teach me! Im going back to heavily themed armies again. Next up is a mech tau army. Now i've heard it said that this army is hideously beardy too! But i've never seen it used, despite going to GT. Now i hate battle suits. Not the rules or the character, the actual models. So i'm having 1, the commander and 2 units of stealth suits. Im also having lots of piranhas and a unit of vespid coz they look cool. 1 hammerhead and a sky ray. This is a 1850pts list so bigger that GT, but its has a bit of most things. 

A tournament is a competition, and most people go to try and win. I think people have to ask themselves, is the problem the list that your facing? Or the list your using? I believe that character and balance will beat beard 7 out of 10 times. So create a list that can adapt. 

I got nailed in 2 games at GT (one by about 300pts and the other was a complete hammering) 

The game against Joe Sturge (300pts game) was recon against Tyranids. So looking back what went wrong? Well i spread out too much for a start, but the real problem was that i didn't have enough movement. I was too static. 

Next game i lost was against Dakari-mane, and i got a right hammering! I had no idea how bad Drop pods were coz nobody bothers with them where i play. His army lands, his librarian FoD a good deal of my army, I lose, badly. 

So over the course of the weekend and upon reflection, i've stared a new army that help combat these problems. You live and learn. The problem wasn't whether i thought their armies were beardy or not, it was that in my attempt to make a hard ass army, it turned out not to be flexible enough to deal with other peoples armies. 

So this army is flexable. It can move, there's a bit of everything and i think it will do well.

MarzM


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Nice story, and I can agree with many of the sentiments (though in practice I'm too much of a sore loser to use them).

But I was under the impression that Tornados were pretty mobile.

Terminators move and shoot too.

Unless the rest was just 6xman las/plas your list has considerable mobility in it (I'm guessing Predators somewhere too).


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> I think (from experience) the big decider is a persons attitude. I keep saying this again and again when this kind of topic comes up. I used to play with amazingly hardcore armies and try to win everything, had lots of fun in the process, ok you'd get a miss match where your opponent could do nothing but sorry it is a tourney, ppl play to win. The big thing is i never rubbed thier faces in it and never tried to push anything, still had fun, even when they got battered they were still jovial about it.
> 
> Now i make nice theme'd lists, like hordes of nids, lots of termies, all meched marines etc. Some of these list are brutal vs the right person, othertimes i get brutalised. Never sluk, never moan always enjoy myself and make sure my opponent gets to enjoy it to.
> 
> ...


That summed it up perfectly IMHO.



> I believe that character and balance will beat beard 7 out of 10 times. So create a list that can adapt.


Couldn't agree more with this as well. I played Tau at the Windsor Conflict and I took a Hybrid list with both mechanized parts and static firebase units and did quite well with it I think. Even went up against a very Mech list and trounced it quite easily. Flexible lists combined with decent skill are much better than the one trick pony armies that many seem to be fond of currently.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

The army list was 

Librarian
2x termies with 2x A/C's
2x 6man las/plas squads
1x scout squad
2x tornado's

2x 6man dev squad.

I dont like painting rhinos for some reason so thats why there's no tanks.

My new Tau list go's;-

HQ
Shas’o 135
Ion, plasma, shield, h/w multi

Ethereal 50

Elites
Stealth team 120
3x team, 3x target array

Stealth ream 120
3x team, 3x target array

Troops
11x Fire warrior 240
Devilfish sms, t/array, m/t, decoy
Seeker missile 

10x Fire warrior 230
Devilfish sms, t/array, m/t, decoy
Seeker missile

Fast attack
Pathfinders 253
8x team, shas’ul with t/lock, bonded
Devilfish, sms, t/array, m/t, decoy
Seeker missile
Vespid 102
5 + leader

2x Piranha 170
Fusion blaster, t/array, decoy
Seeker missile

Heavy Support
Hammerhead 190
Railgun, sms, t/array, m/t, t/l
Decoy, seeker missile

Sky Ray 155
T/array, burst, m/t, decoy



Now i hope the maths is correct, but i've still got around 65 points to spend! 

MarzM


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Not to break the warm mood but 'beardy' and 'one-trick pony' are not always joined.

IW's

Uber Daemon Prince

3 Oblits
3 Oblits
3 Oblits

5x CSM- Lascannon
5x CSM- Lascannon

4xPredator- Twin las, heavy bolter.

1500pts

How is that not flexible?

Facing Orks/Nid's- 15 BS 4 heavy bolters on move and shoot models.

Facing SM's/Chaos- 4 lascannon for tanks, uber DP to chew through squads. 9 twin-plasma.

Facing Mech Tau/Eldar- lascannons, 9 autocannons, etc.

And it's foolish to assume that this player automatically doesn't have as much 'skill' as a player with a less beardy list.

So will Character and Balance win 7 out of 10 times against this? I doubt it, tournaments refute this.


I agree that someone can be a dick, and make the game awful/boring/annoying for their opponent regardless of what army they take.

But losing to IW's, no matter how nice the guy, is always going to grate- as it is blatantly clear he had the advantage from the beginning.

I say again 'Not all armies are created equal'. So when we walk into a tournament with the illusion that everyone has an equal chance, purely dependant on their skill level- this is bulls**t to me.

Simply put 40k was never meant as a hard-core competitive sport- GW may be heading towards this with the new 'more balanced' Codex's, but until IW's and BA take a hit, it will always be a skewed tournament scene. One where some of the competitors have taken gaming steroids.

To claim otherwise just grates as hand-waving propoganda.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Well when at a tourney, i always assume that the person opposite me is as good as me if not better. After all they have the same points as me so thats why were playing. And a dice game is always random. 

But in regards to the I/W list of doom, that coincidentally i know somebody who uses it! Yes it looks hard. And i agree, most armies are not created equal! If they were, the same armies wouldn't continually do well in GT's, where the codex's are there to be broken. 

But, and it is a big but! Playing with numbers on paper is not playing 40k. 

On a wide open table, yes i would be owned by that army, even considering the fact that my list was around 1790 points. A 40k table, GT aside, should have a good amount of terrain( did ya notice the small dig). They are getting better though. 

Out maneuver him, Concentrate firepower, and take the army apart piece by piece. Yes it will be a very hard game, Mohammed Ali, George Forman stuff. If your stupid enough to go head to head against that army then yes you will die. The obilts can deepstike in but if they come in piece meal you can kill them one by one. Uber daemon prince, meet rail cannon, hold on i'll marker light just to help. Depending on terrain, the preds might need up to 3 turn before they can see the tau army! 

40k is too random to play on paper. Until your there playing the game it's all if's and but's. 

But if it make's you feel better, yes i think that I/W list would do very well at a GT. 

MarzM


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

I might buy that list Jeridian. Just to see how high up the tables I finish with it.

I'd probably expect to come top 10...

*Jezlad wanders off in search of a bigger bank balance...*


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

uberschveinen said:


> Elric of Melnibone said:
> 
> 
> > There is a large community at Warhammer.org that believes in not playing to win.
> ...


Its a _*tournament*_, if you are not trying to win you are wasting time for you and all your opponents. (Although they may not complain).

Setting out to lose is idiotic, unless of course it is part of a longer strategy. I think most of us are talking about trying too hard. If you want to guarantee nice games against non-maxed lists don't go to tournaments.

Obviously you can meet nice people and dicks wherever you play.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

am i going to the GT this year?

who knows?
if i do ill need a fuckload of practise and money.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> Well when at a tourney, i always assume that the person opposite me is as good as me if not better. After all they have the same points as me so thats why were playing. And a dice game is always random.


This assumes Games Dev's are gods that never make mistakes...
This is before we even mention that there are years, designers and game editions separating certain Codex's.



> But in regards to the I/W list of doom, that coincidentally i know somebody who uses it! Yes it looks hard. And i agree, most armies are not created equal! If they were, the same armies wouldn't continually do well in GT's, where the codex's are there to be broken.


Kind of my point, in a WAAC mentality- why should anyone choose the less powerful armies? By many statements on here it seems every Tournament must be taken with a WAAC mentality- in which case everyone should take the best lists (e.g. IW's).



> But, and it is a big but! Playing with numbers on paper is not playing 40k.
> 
> On a wide open table, yes i would be owned by that army, even considering the fact that my list was around 1790 points. A 40k table, GT aside, should have a good amount of terrain( did ya notice the small dig). They are getting better though.
> 
> Out maneuver him, Concentrate firepower, and take the army apart piece by piece. Yes it will be a very hard game, Mohammed Ali, George Forman stuff.


Frankly, terrain benefits this list just as much as any army. The CSM can sit in cover, the Predators can claim hull down, the Oblits can move up a flank, hidden from portions of the enemy- everything is move and shoot (except the token CSM's), so can manouever around terrain just as easily.

It will be a hard game? Isn't that my point? The IW's player has it far easier than the non-IW's in this game- so in a WAAC Tournament why take anything but the easiest?



> If your stupid enough to go head to head against that army then yes you will die.


Welcome to a WAAC tournament- you have no choice.



> The obilts can deepstike in but if they come in piece meal you can kill them one by one.


Is there any wargear that can control your opponent's Reserve rolls? This is relying on the opponent having exceptional bad luck and making huge mistakes, i.e. being less skilled. Again, we can't assume this- if your army needs your opponent to make mistakes just to have a chance- it will not do in a WAAC tournament. So why take anything else?



> But if it make's you feel better, yes i think that I/W list would do very well at a GT.


Far from it, I used that list as the prime example. The fact it will do very well at a GT regardless of who uses it, proves my point that we cannot take a WAAC mentality in a game where armies aren't equal- otherwise everyone should just take IW's, etc.



> Its a tournament, if you are not trying to win you are wasting time for you and all your opponents. (Although they may not complain).


But if you don't take the IW's list (or an equally brutal) to a tournament you clearly aren't trying to win enough (since you are handicapping yourself), your wasting the time of you and your opponents.

So where is the line drawn?


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Is it just me or has this thread really diverged? What started out as head shaking at someone whining in another forum has turned into a debate as to whether we should all bring Iron Warriors to GT's (well not really but it illustrates my thoughts a bit).

For the record, that IW list is not the only list that is capable of winning a GT nor is it any more overpowered than several others out there. I will take on that list with my Tau any day of the week and I am willing to say that I don't really see all that much difficulty in beating it. As MarzM pointed out, on paper that list rocks but in game is a whole different matter. Saying that list is the best one ever is like saying Thousand Sons are the best army because they all have 2 wounds. It is just too much generalization.

Now, do I disagree that IW's have a definite advantage? No, not at all. But I am not really sure what exactly your arguement here is. Do you think that people using the best armylist they can make *for their particular army* and trying to win with it is a bad thing? Or are tournaments fundamentally flawed and people shouldn't participate in them because not all armies are equal? Or are we all supposed to use the same exact armylist in order to determine who is truly the best player? Seriously, I am not trying to argue or come across pissed off by your posts or anything, I am just honestly confused.  

The point of a tournament is to bring the army you like the best and see how well you can do with it, both because of its strengths and in spite of its weaknesses. The playing field does not have to be perfectly level at all, just fairly close to it.

This statement from Crystal Meth on Warseer (in the thread that started all this) is a perfect example of what we are talking about:



> This is the reason why space marines need a new codex. This is min-maxed and maxed out on asalt cannons. You should use no more than 2 assalt cannons in a 1500point army. Also the holy grail is overpowerd, remove it.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why should you limit yourself in how many of the best weapon you have you actually use? Why would you NOT take an item available to you because it may be overpowered for its points? The fact is that they are available to you and there is no reason not to take them in a tournament environment, where the goal is to win (not entirely at any cost but we can all agree on the fact that winning is the primary reason for going). You don't have to take the IW list of Doom but at the same time, there is no need to needlessly hamper yourself in what you can take. 

And then there is this statement:



> Because your not supposed to win, your supposed to have fun.


I can do that at home. For free. If I have to pay money to play games, and if there are prizes to be given out among players at the end, it is about winning. Fun too but winning first. If people honestly think that this is what a tournament is about then they really don't belong there as they are bound to have a piss poor time thanks to the people there to win :lol:


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Tsk tsk.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Anphicar said:


> Tsk tsk.


Ummmm.......what? :lol:


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok in a way i understand what your saying. But i think your missing the point a bit. 

When i said that you don't have to go head to head with that army, i didn't mean not to play it. I mean to out play it! That I/W army is not as maneuverable as my Tau army. Drop the ethereal, vespid and 1 unit of stealth suits + maybe a fire warrior or two and thats you around 1500pts. Use the terrain to your advantage, split up his army, fight i one piece at a time. 

I play that I/W army on a regular basis. And with all due respect to the owner of that army, i have to try pretty hard to lose to it. 

As for the tournaments well thats up to GW. Their not stupid! They want to sell stuff thats why things that are super hard are cheap in points but expensive in money! An oblit is a bargin for the points you spend. But the Events team aren't going to come out and outright ban things. Brian Aderson cannot turn round and say, "no the Development team got it wrong" even if he wanted to. The only reason they managed to ban Ulthwe armies is by saying that they were expansion packs and so not valid. 

I see armies like that as a challenge. As you said it takes no skill, ability or tactic to use an army like that one. I don't want to play like that. I want to collect an army that can win yes, but that can be a challenge for myself to play. 

Is the WAAC ideology the fault of the event organizers or the fault of the people who create those sorts of armies? Just because you can, does not mean that you should! 

Personally i find that the people who use that type of army are the people who are more likely to be unable to use tactic's. IMHO those are the people who cannot play the game, who have to substitute ability for stat lines. And i don't want to be that kind of person. Im not the best 40k player in the world, not by far, but i will not resort to those type of tactics just to win a tournament about plastic toy soldiers. 

As for not going to tournaments not to win, well i can be realistic. My luck would have to improve drastically for that to happen. Ok so i win most of my games despite what the damn lady does to me. But if it wasn't for bad luck, id have no luck at all. 

Your not wasting peoples time by going to a tournament to not win. That is a quite stupid comment. A tournament is about more than just hammering your opponents army into dust. It's an occasion, a weekend away. It's a chance to meet up with old friends and have a drink and a damn good time doing it. It's about playing people you don't play on a regular basis and its about having fun!! Yes thats the crux of it. Playing toy soldiers is meant to be fun, even in tournaments. 

I am an advocate of page 5. This applies to all games, both friendly and tournaments. I suggest that some people out there (and they know who they are) should perhaps read that page again before they make there army lists. 

MarzM


----------



## Crystal Meth (Feb 11, 2007)

At the end of the day I would rather go gome with 6 losses and best sportsman award and have a good time. Rather than go to a tournament to WAAC off in peoples faces with a army that is so much cheese it looks like its painted Swiss.

Tournaments are about haveing fun. If you want to WAAC off then please stay at home and play with yourself.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

All games are about having fun, but if you are unable to have fun at tournaments because of the competative atmosphere, why go? It's like joining a running club, then complaining that they run too much. People should be allowed to enjoy the hobby however they like. I've played players who said almost nothing through the whole game, complained about every rule, and generally made themselves unenjoyable to the extreme, yet I still found enjoyment simply by playing 40k. If you put the burden of your feelings on another person's actions, you will nearly always be dissapointed and unhappy.


----------



## Elric of Melnibone (Feb 9, 2007)

Crystal Meth said:


> At the end of the day I would rather go gome with 6 losses and best sportsman award and have a good time. Rather than go to a tournament to WAAC off in peoples faces with a army that is so much cheese it looks like its painted Swiss.


Who say's being a repetative loser makes you the best sportsman ?? Many player would get no ejoyment having a player with that attitude on the other side of the table

One of the most sporting guys I have ever played against is Joe Sturge..and tends to win rather a lot 



Crystal Meth said:


> Tournaments are about haveing fun.


Tournaments are there to be won and there is nothing wrong with trying, you can also have fun winning too



Crystal Meth said:


> If you want to WAAC off then please stay at home and play with yourself.


You obviously have some problems...how about you sort them without dragging the rest of the thread in on them

:wink:


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

the cabbage said:


> uberschveinen said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, yes. They certainly aren't allowed to have fun in an entirely mutually inclusive manner. How dare they try to enjoy the game and not the numbers on the paper at the end of it.
> ...


Actually, two problems with what you said. if you're not trying to win because it makes you have fun, then you're having fun, and your opponent is having fun because he's winning. Who, exactly, comes off bad here.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

I agree MarzM- I don't collect IW's, I was using them as the most obvious example.
I collect Sisters for one- that should be an indication...



> Is the WAAC ideology the fault of the event organizers or the fault of the people who create those sorts of armies? Just because you can, does not mean that you should!


I got the impression in this thread that a lot of people where WAAC.

I just think the 40k game is at least 60% decided by army list. So your chances in a tournament aren't just about how 'awesome' you are- it's more often what toy soldiers you chose to buy.

I still go to tournaments, and have fun, despite this truth. Because there are a lot of people who do go to win, but they don't sell their soul's in the process.



> Your not wasting peoples time by going to a tournament to not win. That is a quite stupid comment. A tournament is about more than just hammering your opponents army into dust. It's an occasion, a weekend away. It's a chance to meet up with old friends and have a drink and a damn good time doing it. It's about playing people you don't play on a regular basis and its about having fun!! Yes thats the crux of it. Playing toy soldiers is meant to be fun, even in tournaments.


Absolutely.


I was just throwing out a 'hypothetical'.
If everyone went to a tournament with a WAAC attitude- then there would only be 2-3 different Codex's..with equally few army builds. There are a lot of people who spout WAAC who never consider this.
I just think people who don't take these 2-3 netlists should have as much chance- and the new GT system goes a long way to bringing that closer.

But it would take bringing the older Codex's back in line with the new (Orks, DE, Chaos, BA, SW etc).


----------



## Kayback (Jan 18, 2007)

Personally I play on Monday afternoons and weekends to have fun, fool around, try interesting army lists and have a beer with some dodgey guys I know.

I attend tournaments to prove I'm the best. 

Some people I know are good enough to do whatever they enter with the minimum equipment. 

I need all the help I can get. If the rules say I can put an AC in as many units as possible, I'm gonna sit back and think about it quite seriously.

For the price what else can I get? What are the chances those other options will 1) survive 2) get to shoot as often 3) be able to move and shoot?

If I want to take a Marine Swarm army and have something like 75 scouts armed with BP and CCW's I'll do that on a weekend. I won't try it at a GT.

Is is balanced? Not really. Is it characterful? Well yes because it's my own chapter, and it's just been founded, and they haven't grown into real Marines yet that takeslike 10 years doesn't it? 

I know some players who could probably take a 70 man Scout force, armed with a couple of heavy and special weapons and hand me my ass, no matter how many Terminators I had in my army.

I wouldn't mind facing that BA list that was posted on the other forum. Why? Simply because speeders can still be taken down by bolters, the 5 man squads can fall below 50% to my sniper rifles, and the plasma cannon my HQ squad has in it could sort out some of those scary assault units.

Would I win? Hell probably not  

Even if 60% of the game is fixed by your army list and now how "awsome" you are, surely CHOOSING THE LIST IN THE FIRST PLACE is part of your awsomeness?

KBK


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

The ironic thing about that list is I actually tried to make it fluffier by taking the Baal and Furioso over 3 Annihilator Preds it had initially.


----------



## Elric of Melnibone (Feb 9, 2007)

MarzM said:


> Your not wasting peoples time by going to a tournament to not win. That is a quite stupid comment. A tournament is about more than just hammering your opponents army into dust. It's an occasion, a weekend away. It's a chance to meet up with old friends and have a drink and a damn good time doing it. It's about playing people you don't play on a regular basis and its about having fun!! Yes thats the crux of it. Playing toy soldiers is meant to be fun, even in tournaments.
> MarzM


I think this is being misunderstood a bit. There is a post from CM saying 'I would rather go and lose 6 games' (and being morally superior).

Personally I do not want that person on the other side of the table, as the chances are I would not enjoy the game, and would most probably end up with the some grief (win, lose or draw)

You are quite about the beers, mates, good time...without that bit it would not be as enjoyable.

Tournaments by nature are competitive, and if you go and lose you cannot moan about WAACers if you go out of your way not to be a WACCer...maybe that is a loser :?:

Basically there is room for all at Tournaments but when the same attitudes and comments come out post after post on forum after forum...it is a little irksome

If you don't want to be a WAAcer fine...but if I do leave me to it without the moral superiority bit, I don't feel the need to tell you not to be a loser..I would leave you to get on with it


:!:


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Very well said Eric, couldn't agree more.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok well first off Elric. I kind of object to you implying that im a loser! Considering you know apsolutely nothing about me i sincerely hope that was an unfortunate choice of words on your part! 

Second the point im trying to make is that in IMHO, the game should be played in the "spirit" of the rules as much as in the "wording" of the rules. Even at tournaments there is room for generosity. For example if somebody is out of a charge by a 16th of an inch, i would give them the charge because lets face a Khorne Bezerker is not going to stop charging because he is a foot away from me. 

MarzM


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

I think that very much depends on the opponent and there attitude. If they had been moving the magic 6" of alot of players then i wouldn't let them charge. If they were a friendly normal person not taking things to seriously then sure, i'd probably let them charge. I find i let people get away with alot more stuff at tournaments then "at home" when playing for some reason. But also i'm pretty laid back most of the time. In the last heat i let one of my opp's move his Man alone plasma gunners he'd forgotten about and rapid fire my greyhunters. Last year when i got a HUGE building in my deployment with my aliatoc i suggested to my opp we counted the building as 5+ because it was a HUGE advantage to me. I let people roll there fortune rolls in the shooting phase when they forgot etc etc.

But if the guys a tosser i won't give him an inch.

Either way i will still play to win in a tournament game


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Bought time we bumped inot each other at the GT.


----------



## Severian (Jan 22, 2007)

Without going over everything already said I believe the point made that applies through all of this is the attitude of the player. If you play against an ass you might win and be glad you beat the pompous prick but still have had a crappy game as far as enjoyment goes. As for cries of cheese or beardy it comes down to this – if it is legal (especially if it is competitive) expect it at a competition. If you want to take a fluffy list, good on you enjoy the experience but accept the drawbacks. If you don't want to play the “cheesy” armies then play with somebody like-minded and leave the competition well alone, the people there want to win – hopefully in good spirit.


----------



## Crystal Meth (Feb 11, 2007)

MarzM said:


> Ok well first off Elric. I kind of object to you implying that im a loser! Considering you know apsolutely nothing about me i sincerely hope that was an unfortunate choice of words on your part!
> 
> Second the point im trying to make is that in IMHO, the game should be played in the "spirit" of the rules as much as in the "wording" of the rules. Even at tournaments there is room for generosity. For example if somebody is out of a charge by a 16th of an inch, i would give them the charge because lets face a Khorne Bezerker is not going to stop charging because he is a foot away from me.
> 
> MarzM


 I agre. I even simply make up rules that make the game characterful mid game. If my opponent wants to be a WAAC and not agre to these rules then pesonelly I think his head needs to be smashed over the table.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

Crystal Meth said:


> I agre. I even simply make up rules that make the game characterful mid game. If my opponent wants to be a WAAC and not agre to these rules then pesonelly I think his head needs to be smashed over the table.


You randomly make up rules in the middle of a game and expect someone to accept them? I don't mind any house rule as long as I am informed before hand, but just generating your own rules in the middle of a game and expecting people to accept them is not a good policy. If you told me in the middle of a game that my orks have to charge across the board every turn because it's "orky", and if I don't do it I'm an unsproting gentleman, I would politely tell you that you are lacking in fair play. If you want a more characterful game, then perhaps you should try talking about it with your opponent before hand.


----------



## Wrath of Khaine (Dec 29, 2006)

It would seem that 40K, or anything competitive at all, isn't your thing. I love to have fun in a game and try to no matter what I am using or my opponent is, but if I didn't agree to instant new rules without being a bastard then there is going to be a problem. There will be shouting, GW employees, and a general vote to remove the person doing so from the tournament if they don't stop. It is a game, and in all games there is competition of some sort. No offense, but if you want house rules on the fly and opponents that have to kiss your ass or get flogged, you should stick to Barbies. Much less fighting in and out of game there.
I've never seen someone take it to that much of an extreme and recommend time with a female(preferably naked) to ease your internal troubles.
I apologize for being brutal, but I still can't believe being so FUN and HAPPY and YOU MAKING RULES that aren't even real seems to go against the BASH HEAD OVER TABLE policy. I for one would never play you if that is how it would be, and woe to anyone who had to deal with the false pretense of FUN while you became Hitler and told them how to live and breathe properly.

-Khaine-


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Crystal Meth said:


> I agre. I even simply make up rules that make the game characterful mid game. If my opponent wants to be a WAAC and not agre to these rules then pesonelly I think his head needs to be smashed over the table.


One day, presuming you live to be old, you'll read this post again and be awestruck by how mindbogglingly _stupid_ it is. I don't like outright insulting things when I can simply say what's wrong with them, but this is wrong on so many fundamental levels as to be utterly incurable.


----------



## Severian (Jan 22, 2007)

Crystal Meth said:


> MarzM said:
> 
> 
> > Ok well first off Elric. I kind of object to you implying that im a loser! Considering you know apsolutely nothing about me i sincerely hope that was an unfortunate choice of words on your part!
> ...


I am truly at al loss, do you read what you type? You do not need to make up rules in the middle of the game because you think it would be more fun (your opponent will most probably disagree) the rules already exists handily compiled in a big book – you may have come across it while playing 40K. Now because your opponent does not agree to your impromptu rule editing you are of the opinion that he needs to have his head smashed.

I try to restrain myself but it has to be said that you need to avoid any type of competitive environment as you are clearly not suited thereto and someone might decide concuss you in no uncertain manner. 

You are most welcome to enjoy the hobby in your own (if somewhat strange, in my opinion) manner but you are not welcome to try and force this on other players who decides to stick with the official and legal ruleset (see the above mentioned book.)

I will most certainly not be agreeing to any “new” rules mid game and you are welcome to attempt any corrective measures that you so enthusiastically advocate.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Crystal Meth said:


> MarzM said:
> 
> 
> > Ok well first off Elric. I kind of object to you implying that im a loser! Considering you know apsolutely nothing about me i sincerely hope that was an unfortunate choice of words on your part!
> ...


Absolutely extraordinary I am almost speechless. If you are trolling I really think you should get back under your bridge until the next billy goats gruff come along.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

I think the message has been communicated, and that some genuinely useful commentary should be brought back in.



MarzM said:


> a Khorne Bezerker is not going to stop charging because he is a foot away from me.
> MarzM


The point, however, is not that he's out of axe murder distance. The real issue is that the distance is just so far you have time to react in an organised and disciplined fashion, moving back, countercharging, shooting, or all of the above. This is best represented by the normal turn procedure, so instead of having this extra turn totally self-contained, they've just included it with the next one.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

> a Khorne Bezerker is not going to stop charging because he is a foot away from me.


You're right but as Uber pointed out it's reflected in the rules. A turn defines a set period of time, they aren't robots - they don't stop running to allow the enemy a chance to manouvre. 

Against my 6 dread opponent at the heats we squabbled for a few mins over an eighth of an inch charge distance on my DC.

It's all down to how bad you want it, the rules state he didn't get in to h2h so imo he didn't. No quarter given.

In the end I won the game by 200 vps. If i'd conceeded and let the dread jump the extra eighth I would definately of lost the game, dropped 3 points and failed to qualify.

Big price to pay for being a "sportsman".


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

I think the majority of people move the extra 8th of an inch in normal turn squence so i personally think if theres any doubt when it comes to charging then it should side with failing to reach. But only if there is any doubt at all. Sometimes its just wishfull thinking that a charge does or doesn't pull off.
There are loads of times i can think of when i've let people get away with those extra inches here and there though. Mainly to keep the game going and avoid arguements


----------



## Elric of Melnibone (Feb 9, 2007)

Jezlad said:


> > Big price to pay for being a "sportsman".
> 
> 
> I can never understand the idea you are a good sport if you let your opponent break the rules.
> ...


----------



## Elric of Melnibone (Feb 9, 2007)

uberschveinen said:


> Crystal Meth said:
> 
> 
> > I agre. I even simply make up rules that make the game characterful mid game. If my opponent wants to be a WAAC and not agre to these rules then pesonelly I think his head needs to be smashed over the table.
> ...


Can I just point out to this Thread that Crystal Meth is a troll and we are all falling into the trap of replying to his idiotic posts.

He is doing exactly the same thing on Warseer, go look at all posts by CM

HOW ABOUT WE ALL JUST IGNORE HIM AND KEEP TO THE THREAD DISCUSSION, WITH LUCK HE WILL JUST GO AWAY

:wink:


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

In case you did not or elected not to notice, we did just that several posts ago.

Extra movement is something I have no single set rule for. If it conveys on an opponent an advantage they could never otherwise have, or they are the sort of individual I would never give such leeway to, then I wouldn't allow, even in a casual game. On the other hand, if the squad should be able to charge but inexplicably isn't, or the gap is a result of an unexpected mistake on either players' part, I'll almost always let it go. I's mostlyan individual judgment.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> You're right but as Uber pointed out it's reflected in the rules. A turn defines a set period of time, they aren't robots - they don't stop running to allow the enemy a chance to manouvre.


By the same logic a enemy squad doesn't just sit 'frozen' waiting for the KB to cut them apart.

The turn system is to make the game playable- yet in 'reality' the action is happening simultaneously.

So if your out, your out.

My favourites are the first turn distance.
Because you know your opponent is further than 24", or 18", or 12" (Infiltrators).
So when they miraculously move and are in range with weapons that basic maths tells you can't be....it's nice to see the reaction.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

This thread is being watched. 

Play nice.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok so yes according to the rules an 8th of an inch is out. But i don't want any bad feeling in the game. Yes if we start 24" apart, he cannot shoot till turn 3 and charge to turn 4. But, and this came up at GT. A guy i was playing drop podded in a dread and the turn after he wanted to charge. It was close, what we scot's would call "out by a baw hair". But i felt so bad about saying no because i was so desperate to win. But i let him roll for it. As it happened he didn't win the roll, and i felt that he was really annoyed about it for the rest of the game. I know what it feels like. At GT the year before, i had a a farseer and warlock bodyguard in my Iyanden army and i rolled 2 consecutive 1's in a row for fleet, and i was out of the charge by the same amount and the guy said no straight away! The unit got destroyed in the next shooting phase and i lost the game! Its just one of those things! 

MarzM


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

In a friendly game with the local guys I will generally let far more slide, such as some of the things mentioned above. At a tournament, not a chance. If you are out of range, you are out period. I am at said tournament to win if I can, not lose by letting my opponents exploit me


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

> Your not wasting peoples time by going to a tournament to not win. That is a quite stupid comment. A tournament is about more than just hammering your opponents army into dust. It's an occasion, a weekend away. It's a chance to meet up with old friends and have a drink and a damn good time doing it. It's about playing people you don't play on a regular basis and its about having fun!! Yes thats the crux of it. Playing toy soldiers is meant to be fun, even in tournaments.


Give Mr. Marz a gold star! This is pretty much exactly what its all about IMO. I'll play hard but fair and give the benefit of the doubt to guys who I think deserve it, like Jigplums said. Anyone who's enjoying a good close game against me and having fun gets leeway, anyone being a cock or just generally being anti-social gets nothing.



> a Khorne Bezerker is not going to stop charging because he is a foot away from me.


I always think of this situation as when the sword wielding Eygptian guy confronts Indiana Jones before being calmly shot. Unlucky!


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

anathema said:


> > Your not wasting peoples time by going to a tournament to not win. That is a quite stupid comment. A tournament is about more than just hammering your opponents army into dust. It's an occasion, a weekend away. It's a chance to meet up with old friends and have a drink and a damn good time doing it. It's about playing people you don't play on a regular basis and its about having fun!! Yes thats the crux of it. Playing toy soldiers is meant to be fun, even in tournaments.
> 
> 
> Give Mr. Marz a gold star!


I've got to disagree, a tournament is by definition a competition. Competitions are also fun and a chance to meet people but are still competitions. When I go out to play rugby I don't have some bizarre idea about letting the opponents score to make the game fun. Neither does the fact that I will spend 80 minutes trying to smash him into the ground affect the time spent socializing after the match.

If you enter a competition you must surely accept the unwritten conditions. ie try to win. This does not mean rules lawyering or being a dick. If you role over against me I will not have fun, you have been a dick and wasted a couple of hours of my life.

(Obviously all the above is IMO)


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

the cabbage said:


> I've got to disagree, a tournament is by definition a competition. Competitions are also fun and a chance to meet people but are still competitions. When I go out to play rugby I don't have some bizarre idea about letting the opponents score to make the game fun. Neither does the fact that I will spend 80 minutes trying to smash him into the ground affect the time spent socializing after the match.
> 
> If you enter a competition you must surely accept the unwritten conditions. ie try to win. This does not mean rules lawyering or being a dick. If you role over against me I will not have fun, you have been a dick and wasted a couple of hours of my life.


 
Ok so who said anything about rolling over? I've never "let" somebody win in my life! I think you misunderstand my comment. I don't go to GT saying im/or thinking im going to win. My army isn't beardy enough for that! If you want to see an army list capable of winning GT look for Easy-e's List elsewhere on this forum. Thats a Beardy list, thats capable of winning GT depending on how good he is. I don't know! The point is i refuse to take a list like that. I want to see how i get on with a non beardy list. And thanks to my knowledge of the rules and both the weak points and strenghts of my and my opponents army, usually i get on very well. I know what the definition of a competition is, But i think your confusing a "sport" with a "game". Yes both are meant to be won, but you only have to be nice to your opponent after the sport has finished! 

IMHO, writing a beardy list does not show skill or ability, it shows a lack of imagination and tactical knowhow! 

As Donald Rumsfeld said;- 

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." 

And while most of what he sez is total rubbish, this one is true. Every army needs runt, by cutting out the runt and min/maxing it takes away a lot of the skill of the game. Taking 2 five or six man squads so that you can max out on oblits/preds/termies/heavysupport/tornadoes or whatever IMO ruins the game. A tank might capture an objective, but you need infantry to hold it! People should take more runts! after all, there is a reason why you can have up to 6 troop choices and only 3 of everything else! 

But i guess most power games disagree! Thats why all the wee kids think their cool! coz they win tournaments! Big Deal! Perhaps i should just go back to playing F.O.W. where army list's make more sense?! 

MarzM


----------



## Elric of Melnibone (Feb 9, 2007)

MarzM said:


> IMHO, writing a beardy list does not show skill or ability, it shows a lack of imagination and tactical knowhow!
> 
> But i guess most power games disagree! Thats why all the wee kids think their cool! coz they win tournaments! Big Deal! Perhaps i should just go back to playing F.O.W. where army list's make more sense?!
> 
> MarzM


I think you should, as you have made the quotes that always get made in these threads......I am right and and I'm morally superior + minor put down to those who do not agree

Thanks for acheiving the predicatble rather than reading.....the above posts where several say

There is room for all types at tourneys and in gaming in general, everyone can do their own thing ..everyone just needs to be polite enough to leave others to do their own thing

:roll: :roll:


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Well elric, 

First off i just want to say that i have never claimed to be superior to anybody. But let me as you an honest question. 

What was it that made you start to play 40k? 

The reason that i ask is that with me it was the imagery. The spectical of the whole 40k universe. That is what gets most people IMO to play 40k. Not Guns, not tournaments, and certainly not so i could have people try and question my integrity on a forum. 

As i said before i don't think its big or clever writing a list of doom! To this point i have not " put down" anybody. I mentioned that easy-e had written a beardy list for GT. I think few people would not say it's not. I also said that i thought it could do very well at GT, but you failed to mention that in your response. His and my style of play are different, but his is no less valid. 

Elric, perhaps the reason you object to my ideas is because you see yourself in what im attacking. IMO dropping some of the heavy support and a couple of oblit, would allow for things like bike squads that came add to some tactic variety to army army such as IW. A good friend of mine took a chosen unit all with infiltrate speed and power weapons to GT and did very well, because it was something out of the norm, because people didn't expect it from an IW army. This unit didn't always make it's points back, but it bought the rest of his army more time. Balance and variety. Honestly it works. But then again, you think im trying to be morally superior, so what does it really matter what i say. 

MarzM


----------



## Wrath of Khaine (Dec 29, 2006)

I have but one question...
WHY?!

This thread was about a flippin funny post on another forum, not human morality or gaming doctrine. Opinions are like a$$holes; Everyone has them. Plus, they are always different.

I see no reason to even keep replying to this thread for any of us, as it has nothing to do with the topic. Whoever thinks this is that important, start a thread in Off-Topic about opinions, gaming styles, bearding and whining. This really isn't the place.

The rediculousness of the two arguers from Warseer is the topic. One being emotionally distraught and outright vicious over idiotic reasons that in-no-way-at-all should effect his mood, day, life, drive. Hilarious and proves that some people need to GET OUTSIDE more!

-Khaine-


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

I like to think of it as progression of a conversation- there's only so many times people can say 'Oh, that is an amusing Warseer post' before it gets old- and do we really need to start a new thread everytime some dares to ask a related question, or raise a related point?


----------

