PDA

View Full Version : Gamers mentality of army compostiton



genestealer_baldric
08-10-2009, 10:02
I was wondering how the gaming groups plays like in other areas.

The problem I have is the way gamers I play a lot desire to Win not have fun, almost every game i have played in the last 2 years has consisted of ":cheese:" and power gamers. I would quite like a fluffy game but they are pointless the last few times i have arranged "fluff" games with my nids people roll out fully mech and my gaunts just become target practice.

The same happened in fantasy with the magic phase just getting magicd to death in a turn is a pointless waste of time which is why I gave up.

but this I know this started out as another whineseer thread but after my mates previous tournament he run I can see a glimmer of light that I would like to see get bigger.

Itís based on the armyís composition and the units you select will give you bonus points e.g. no 3 landradiers 8 Mc etc. and a set number of requiremnets give the fluffer list a bigger starting advantage. Hopefully with fluffy players getting rewarded and given and advantage we can all become lactose intolerant.

The question is do you like fighting these game breaking armys or would you like to see fluffy players rewarded?

Sunyavadin
08-10-2009, 10:54
I base an army around a concept and then work within that framework to give me the best shot of winning. More players should do this, I feel.

Rewarding players with armies which lean more towards the fluff is a good concept, however it is very hard to implement except in a tournament with judging conditions granting bonuses for armies based around the spirit of the game rather than abusing the letter.
The trouble is, the moment you codify anything in rules, it can be abused and people will do so to get an advantage.

Latro_
08-10-2009, 11:04
I'm a bit weird in this regard, Owing to the amount of time i spend on WS i generally tweak and config armies to their natural most competitive build. Like in the deathguard thread we have more or less totally locked down 'the' best DG army you can possibly run with the CSM codex.

Now the guys I game with vary greatly:
My mates are a bit of a hybrid mix of fluff/what looks cool and units they think are ard on the table top.

Randoms at FLGS either:
- have no idea and just use the models they have in some bodged list
- are crazy beardy and bring killa lists to the table
- a bit like my mates

I don't see many hardcore fluff armies, those that are built up entirely with the background in mind. Saying that you can justify the units you take into your own fluff, its your game after all.

I think list really is only one factor in game and actually having fun is another. Like once when the new CSM codex came out, for a test i took my IW army down to local store with 2 lash sorcerers and 9 obilterators... totally runined a 13th company dude by the 3rd turn. We still had fun discussing the new book and we ended up just letting him bring units back on that were dead to keep the game flowing.

If he had the skill of a GT player and had the most competitive 13th company list possible would he have won or stood a chance? maybe.

Fact was he had a mediocre list and was an average gamer so his fate was sealed, however we still had a great game and 'made' the game fun.

If i'd of brought that list stone faced and systematically annihilated his army then i cant say i'd of had much fun nor him and it'd of been over pretty quick.

So by all means take the most competitive list, it does not mean you cant have fun against someone with a lesser list or someone who isnt as competent a gamer, you just need to make the game work to be fun as best you can.

Folks who are good at gaming, take competitive armies but are also 'win win win, arrogant d$%ks' outside of a tourney setting really don't get what this hobby is all about.

andyc
08-10-2009, 11:04
Hi

I don't really understand the concept of a 'fluff' army. It is a wargame and as you are the general, it is up to you to pick the best army and win the battle. By using the FOC it is up to you to pick the best you can, and therefore you get a balanced game (well, mostly), and if the weaker army loses, then you improve it for next time.

'Fluff' armies, IMO, are those which are meant to re-enact some story you have created or GW has produced with specific characters and/or tales of legend etc. And to be honest in those situations you throw the army FOC out of the window and create a whole bunch of new rules to compensate for the inevitable massively outnumbered good guys beating the massive hordes of orks/chaos marines/tyranids right at the last minute. A bit like Planetstrike, or apocalypse in that respect.

In a decent gaming group, both concepts are possible. If you want to play fluffy, then write a story, make the lists yourself, and invite someone to play. If you want to play it as a game, then play to win. In my experience, both approaches can be fun.

Andy

Condottiere
08-10-2009, 11:08
Fluffy armies in this game is really subjective; if you had to play from a prepared list, this might qualify for a really fluffy army.

Macragge
08-10-2009, 11:38
By and large, the gamers within my club are a pleasure to go up against. The overwhelming percentage build a core balanced non cheesy army that ties in nicely with the fluff for that particular race.

Don't get me wrong, most of us spend plenty of time on army builder switching things around, trying to find some space for that little bit more, and crunching some maths, and almost all of us tailor make army lists for particular enemies, and we all play to win, but it always keeps the cheese at a suitable level.

Occasionally someone joins and gets the power gaming vibe, and they generally win, but the atmosphere within the group tends to give the qudos to the one who fields a balanced non cheesy army, win or lose, which keeps the pressure on people to keep that theme going.

I'm spreading alot of love today, but I'm happy to report that within my club, things are rosey in that dept.

Bunnahabhain
08-10-2009, 11:46
Both.
I like using both weaker builds, and as powerful as possible ones. However, they are always fluffy- ie they fit the background well.

As a Guard player, I have too many points for any practical use. So I can happily field any main army style.

Mechanised veterans- the best representation of Real life armoured spearhead going- main battle tanks with a powerful force of escorting infantry.

Artillery spam/ all infantry. These come up time and time again in the background. I also play WW2 Russians, so they seem very familiar....

Hybreds, Rough rider spam, Stracken close combat guard. I haven't had a chance to try them all properly yet, but I will.

I try to play pre-arranged games where possible, and If not, I try and bring a few lists, and ask my opponent if they want powergaming lists or not...

Fixer
08-10-2009, 11:57
I take a somewhat of the middle of the road approach where I try to make the army as powerful as possible while not excessively deviating from it's fluff.

I've played Salamanders for 10 years now and I always try to theme the army to it's flamey/hammery background within reason. In 3rd edition despite multimeltas being the favoured weapon of the Salamanders and there was a nice picture of a Tac marine using one in Codex: Armageddon I quickly dropped them from my tactical squads after realising that having a weapon that was less powerful than a Lascannon in every circumstance except for having a vehicle that parked itself 12" for some reason was a pretty poor choice. (Went with Flamer/Melta combinations until the 4th ed dex hit).

Still, I wouldn't just drop theme to go for the best units available. Back during the 4th edition Tornado and Librarian era I only used my Thunderhammer captain and Multimelta/Heavy flamer speeders.

5th Edition has been quite kind to me in that all pretty the options I used previously and new themed options have now become the 'best choice' while all the others (anything with an assault cannon tied to it really) have been hit by a price increase, accessibility reduction or nerf in some some.

Which brings us the the crux of the problem. Army theme unfortunately has no real relation to 'army power'.

3.5 Iron Warriors had the excuse that they were in theme because they used their horribly broken legion list (Hey, here's access to all of the best options in the army book, plus the best options in two other codexes a delimitation on the best elite unit in the game which is effectively heavy support. Oh you lose access to some crappy fast attack no-one takes)

You have modern Nob biker armies too (Elite Speed freeks) and who's to say that's not in the theme of a Warbosses sending out their biggest and best in a Waaagh while the rest of the boyz catch up?

Then you have the other end of the spectrum with the completely unfluffy twin Slaaneshi lash demon princes leading armies of beserkers, obliterators, plague marines and effectively everything but Noise marines.

So really comp really comes down to a judge's opinion on how cheesy/against the fluff an army list is rather than any specific penalties.

Really though I think the game and tournaments would be better balanced if some of the more glaring balance issues were resolved by house rules.

My personal list:

Lash of submission rules changed: Target unit now moves at half speed, has WS/BS halved (rounding down to a minimum of 1) and takes a pinning check instead of being moved 2D6 inches.

A nob unit's Doks tools do not work when mounted on a bike.

A seer council may be mounted on bikes if it numbers 5 models or less.

Units with the Necron special rule are Stubborn at Ld 9 (with the exception of lords who remain Ld10)

Anhillation missions use Victory points. Killpoints are scrapped.

Lord-Gen Bale Chambers
08-10-2009, 12:00
My club really doesn't have any over-the-top power gamers. We have no double lash chaos players, no nob biker ork players, etc.

When new players play against vets in the club, the vets try to make it an enjoyable experiance and not table the rookie in a few turns.

Overall, everyone has a good time and we don't run into alot of the problems I hear others complain about.

Born Again
08-10-2009, 13:41
I base an army around a concept and then work within that framework to give me the best shot of winning. More players should do this, I feel.


Yup, agreed. This is the way I do it, and the way I think others should. Being fluffy doesn't mean you can't be competitive. I've never understood why some people see them as being mutually exclusive.


Hi

I don't really understand the concept of a 'fluff' army. It is a wargame and as you are the general, it is up to you to pick the best army and win the battle. By using the FOC it is up to you to pick the best you can, and therefore you get a balanced game (well, mostly), and if the weaker army loses, then you improve it for next time.


You're looking at it from a concept of a player, you have an army list with everything in front of you to choose from. The idea of having all this rich, wonderful fluff is to think about your army composition from an in-universe perspective. So you can look at the Chaos army list and know that 2 daemon princes with Lash of Submission will make things tough for your opponent, but that's not how the leader of a Khorne warband would be seeing things, they'd rather try and kill the weakling servants of Slaanesh, pathetic whelps that they are.

genestealer_baldric
08-10-2009, 13:48
My personal list:

Lash of submission rules changed: Target unit now moves at half speed, has WS/BS halved (rounding down to a minimum of 1) and takes a pinning check instead of being moved 2D6 inches.

A nob unit's Doks tools do not work when mounted on a bike.

A seer council may be mounted on bikes if it numbers 5 models or less.

Units with the Necron special rule are Stubborn at Ld 9 (with the exception of lords who remain Ld10)

Anhillation missions use Victory points. Killpoints are scrapped.


yeah thats what i was getting at

1. how could the mad dock provide FNP whilst doing 80mph and injust adrenline into a crippled ork- so Agreed

2. Seer council- yep thats a good solution

3. they are as likley to break as nids in synaspe range, so they should be fearless instead of stubborn .

people claim that any army they can make is fluffy but i disagree 8 mc or 3 LR in 1500 is not balanced fluffy list.

Iam not saying the guys i play arnt nice guys but powergamers beget powergamers and the cycle needs to be broken at some point.

gabrielstrom
08-10-2009, 13:50
I'm a bit off the wall with army selection. I generally pick models that I want to put on the field. My current Space Marine lists include the LS Storm, Scout bikes, and the LR Redeemer.

Or I'll theme an army (My Imperial Guard are 101st Vostroyans in a Cities of Death type environment so almost all infantry)

Or I'll just buy loads of stuff so I can tool up a list for a GT (Daemons and Dark Angels.)

So I do bits of everything. My favourite games are often played with my themed lists or my 'want to take them' models lists.

Lord Cook
08-10-2009, 14:32
Playing to win has nothing to do with fun or the lack of fun. I play to win and I expect my opponent to also play to win. If they do not, then the game is not fun because there is no challenge or suspense. Similarly, some of my best games have been against extremely powerful armies played by people trying their hardest to beat me.

What it really comes down to is how much your opponent values you having as much fun as them. This is what makes or breaks a game. Things like twin-lash of submission are excellent examples of things that aren't fun for your opponent, because they take his/her units directly out of their control, and basically just let you run the game yourself.


Lash of submission rules changed: Target unit now moves at half speed, has WS/BS halved (rounding down to a minimum of 1) and takes a pinning check instead of being moved 2D6 inches.

A nob unit's Doks tools do not work when mounted on a bike.

A seer council may be mounted on bikes if it numbers 5 models or less.

Units with the Necron special rule are Stubborn at Ld 9 (with the exception of lords who remain Ld10)

Anhillation missions use Victory points. Killpoints are scrapped.

Yes, that basically fixes 40k for me.

Giganthrax
08-10-2009, 15:22
What constitutes a power list and what constitutes a fluffy list is a 100% subjective thing. Trying to make house rules that penalize people for making their armies the way they want to is just plain wrong. If someone wants to have 3 LRs in 1500 pts, then that's fine, as he's pretty much crippling his army by doing it. If someone wants to play dual lash, and you have no way of beating it, then don't play that person, simple as.

Fixer
08-10-2009, 16:22
If someone wants to play dual lash, and you have no way of beating it, then don't play that person, simple as.

So you're saying that if a player wants to use a space marine bike army against a twin lash player, they can't just agree to use some fairer houserules. They have to not play at all?

Why? Because Games Workshop's rules are sacrosanct and can't be altered in any way? If you can't deal with it (and deal with lash in this case means dumping your army and building a new one that has lash being countered specifically in mind) then stop playing 40K?

I find that attitude to be extremely rude.

Games Workshop has improved balance over the years but still has one hell of a lot of glaring and obviously problems and these issues take an age to resolved because of GW's extremely slow rules updating process. As such it's down to players to balance the game in some manner for friendly matches or tournaments.

Perhaps you feel this to be unreasonable.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man."

PaulmanMN
08-10-2009, 16:38
Folks who are good at gaming, take competitive armies but are also 'win win win, arrogant d$%ks' outside of a tourney setting really don't get what this hobby is all about.


That just became my signature. Thanks bub!

Giganthrax
08-10-2009, 16:40
So you're saying that if a player wants to use a space marine bike army against a twin lash player, they can't just agree to use some fairer houserules. They have to not play at all?
Read what I said again.

I said "if someone WANTS to play dual lash". That constitutes a player who absolutely wants to play his dual lash list, and won't change drastically his playstyle to accommodate his opponent, even though his opponent has no chance of winning. Unless you're playing in a tournament, there's absolutely no reason for you to play against an army that you have no chance against.

40k is a competitive game. In every competitive game where players choose from different armies/characters/weapons there are balance issues and a certain amount of rock-paper-scissors. Theoretically, house rules could be a good thing, but in reality player-made rules almost invariably imbalanced. Again, it'd be okay if you're playing with a friend (although why a friend would insist on taking a dual lash list against your biker army is beyond me), but against a stranger at the LGS? Nah.

jsullivanlaw
08-10-2009, 19:41
Read what I said again.

I said "if someone WANTS to play dual lash". That constitutes a player who absolutely wants to play his dual lash list, and won't change drastically his playstyle to accommodate his opponent, even though his opponent has no chance of winning. Unless you're playing in a tournament, there's absolutely no reason for you to play against an army that you have no chance against.


Yeah if you play daemons and your enemy brings null zone, master of the fleet, mystics, sanctuary ect., just scoop up your models and yell "Warp Rift!" or some other stupid thing and start putting em away.

Badger[Fr]
08-10-2009, 21:31
I base an army around a concept and then work within that framework to give me the best shot of winning. More players should do this, I feel.
Indeed, that's how I work as well. I always try to field effective armies, but hate copy-pasted and bandwagons army lists with a passion. As an exemple, I currently run a hybrid IG army which heavily relies on combined squads, orders, and Chimeras, but also field underused units such as Ogryns, Storm Troopers, or Penal Legionaries. There are few things as satisfying as the underdog beating his opponent to death.

Count de Monet
08-10-2009, 21:42
I would quite like a fluffy game but they are pointless the last few times i have arranged "fluff" games with my nids people roll out fully mech and my gaunts just become target practice.

So mech lists can't be fluffy?


Itís based on the armyís composition and the units you select will give you bonus points e.g. no 3 landradiers 8 Mc etc. and a set number of requiremnets give the fluffer list a bigger starting advantage. Hopefully with fluffy players getting rewarded and given and advantage we can all become lactose intolerant.

I can see restricting "power" lists, but I don't think they're necessarily any less fluffy than a weak list.


The question is do you like fighting these game breaking armys or would you like to see fluffy players rewarded?

What is fluffy, and indeed what is powerful, can be very subjective. Add in that some "fluffy" lists can also be very powerful and it's harder to make a real distinction.

"Fluffy" shouldn't always mean "typical". It's a big galaxy; I don't mind seeing unusual army builds. Yes, sometimes they end up being the rock to my scissors, but sometimes they end up as paper instead.

Cognitave
08-10-2009, 21:56
We have some different lists, people making their lists efficient but fluffy. It's best to clear it with your opponent beforehand if you want to practice a tourney list, however.

When it comes to competitive tournaments, which we hold frequently, there is no such thing as :cheese: in my mind.

Darkhorse
08-10-2009, 21:57
I'm a historical gamer at heart so to put it in that perspective if you were to field a historical army you have a precedent to follow, an actual blood and guts force that saw combat at such and such a place at such and such a time.
Translate that onto a tabletop force and you have a "fluffy" army. Of course being set in a fictional universe dislocates this grounding factor but that is easily overcome.
My fully mechanised Imperial Guard is essentially a Wehrmacht panzer force lifted from Achtung Panzer! by Heinz Guderian and adapted to the equipment of the Imperial Guard.
Similarly my Blood Axes comply with the force structure of the Imperial Guard, though this seems too subtle a concept for most gamers to pick up on.

Bloodriver
08-10-2009, 23:04
When I read the novel "Dark Disciple", I was struck by the fact that the Word Bearers strike force that the book centres around had a very similar model count (so to speak) as my usual tournament armies, so I wrote up a 1,750 point list based as closely as I could on the force described in the book. To me, that seems very fluffy - you have a whole book that describes yor army! But I know that if I actually built this army (something which I am still very tempted to do) I'll be accused of being a cheesy bearded power-gamer because I have a 1,750 point army that includes four Land Raiders. Many people tend to focus on just one aspect (in this case the Land Raiders) without taking into account that this army would have severe limitations in other crucial respects (its poor ability to deal with hordes, its poor chances of controlling enough objectives, the fact that there are plenty of weapons that tear heavy armour to bits, etc). I think those limitatations are what would make the army interesting and challenging to play, but even though it complies 100% with the Codex, I can see it being for games against friends only.

Occulto
09-10-2009, 00:51
I'm a bit weird in this regard, Owing to the amount of time i spend on WS i generally tweak and config armies to their natural most competitive build. Like in the deathguard thread we have more or less totally locked down 'the' best DG army you can possibly run with the CSM codex.

Which is my biggest complaint about the "competitive" mindset. The "best" builds tend to be minor variations on the same basic list.

Not to mention the range of armies that just don't appear because the whole codex is deemed: "unviable."

Winning or losing has little to do with it. It's more about how boring the game is when you keep playing the same unimaginative lists over and over again.

Vesica
09-10-2009, 00:59
I was wondering how the gaming groups plays like in other areas.

The problem I have is the way gamers I play a lot desire to Win not have fun, almost every game i have played in the last 2 years has consisted of ":cheese:" and power gamers. I would quite like a fluffy game but they are pointless the last few times i have arranged "fluff" games with my nids people roll out fully mech and my gaunts just become target practice.

The same happened in fantasy with the magic phase just getting magicd to death in a turn is a pointless waste of time which is why I gave up.

but this I know this started out as another whineseer thread but after my mates previous tournament he run I can see a glimmer of light that I would like to see get bigger.

Itís based on the armyís composition and the units you select will give you bonus points e.g. no 3 landradiers 8 Mc etc. and a set number of requiremnets give the fluffer list a bigger starting advantage. Hopefully with fluffy players getting rewarded and given and advantage we can all become lactose intolerant.

The question is do you like fighting these game breaking armys or would you like to see fluffy players rewarded?

I would love to see fluffy player rewarded but i doubt i will.

When ever i get a game in (hardly ever now) its usually fluffy, my army list is built for how i want my chapter to be, not really to win.

For me its all about fun, and if i win its a bonus.

genestealer_baldric
09-10-2009, 11:09
We have some different lists, people making their lists efficient but fluffy. It's best to clear it with your opponent beforehand if you want to practice a tourney list, however.

When it comes to competitive tournaments, which we hold frequently, there is no such thing as :cheese: in my mind.

yeah at tourniments play hard thats the point but in pick up day to day games play for fun


Which is my biggest complaint about the "competitive" mindset. The "best" builds tend to be minor variations on the same basic list.

Not to mention the range of armies that just don't appear because the whole codex is deemed: "unviable."

Winning or losing has little to do with it. It's more about how boring the game is when you keep playing the same unimaginative lists over and over again.

thats excatly one of the main points i think people should adress

well a fully meched army for SM is known but when he never normally takes 2 or 3 tanks to suddenly have his whole army based in viechals etc after we had discussed me doing a "fluff" swarm army.

The most fun game i had was a fully swarm army vs 2000 points of Sm all but 2 units on foot, at the end there was 2 units left from each side and whole lot of dead models, this
seems like a fluffy battle to me or Sm holding the line against a nid swarm.

its the sprit of game iam trying to get at about the fun of face to face battles as opossed to just fighting to win at all costs with online games.

Mannimarco
09-10-2009, 11:38
there is a crossover point between fluffy and competitive, look at mech death guard

its pretty nasty on the table and is quite fluffy, this is where i try to get to with all the armies i build: trying to make it as fluffy as possible but still highly competitive

carldooley
09-10-2009, 14:33
consider trading armies sometime. not permanently, just for a game or two. I did this and a list that I usually use to smash my opponents wasn't usable by my opponent because he didn't know how to use it optimally. Well, actually that is a fib. there were 3 players, all the armies were my own and we played on a medium oval 4x3ft. table. SM - Tau - eldar.

I gave the other two players choice; one took SM, the other took mech eldar. dawn of war, annihilation. lucky me, I ended up in the middle of the board and while I had my stealth spotter team shot to shreds, I ended up winning with 3 KPs. Now, both players were admitted powergamers and I should have been shot off the table in the second and third turns considering that I walked everything on(great thing about ASS). One as much as admitted to me that the reason that he didn't win was because he would have built a different list. We'll have to test that because later today he is bringing his own.

I usually play tournaments, and each of the lists are all comers lists, so the should have been able to handle each other. while some followed a theme, others were thrown together(which means that I'll have to rethink how I play TE considering how well I did).

if they wind up reading this, tonight I'm bringing SM Infantry and nidzilla. gonna have to see how I do as I intend to use SM and nidzilla is the loaner list.

Ravenous
09-10-2009, 14:44
Peoples opinion on comp varies from person to person. You can take the fluffiest army in the world and it can contain a unit that someone doesnt like and bomb your scores or get pissy about it.

I have a 10 man seer council in my army with Eldrad while I have 3 units of paper thin storm guardians as troops, I'll lose games and people still call it cheese because of the seer council that is running me nearly 700pts of my army.

The biggest problem with fluff is that you can make up your own, so if someone takes the time to build a Nidzilla list with a 200 word story and its beautifully painted I could care less what they take because they are putting the effort in.

There is some "for fun" gamers that go to my local store all the time and bitch about cheese lists but they use proxy models from 5 years ago, dont own rulebooks and never paint their models. To me they can be as fluffy as they want but they cant say a damn thing to anyone with that sort of effort and presentation.

Gimp
09-10-2009, 14:46
At my club we dont use house rules. They break the game mechanics way to much and are usually unfair.

We all play to win but we also play to have fun. Most of our lists are competitive but not cheesy. No one likes playing a one sided game and in most cases cheese lists can be boring to play against and with.

Ravenous
09-10-2009, 14:54
At my club we dont use house rules. They break the game mechanics way to much and are usually unfair.

We all play to win but we also play to have fun. Most of our lists are competitive but not cheesy. No one likes playing a one sided game and in most cases cheese lists can be boring to play against and with.

Thats something alot of people seem to forget that you can make an army that is designed to win without sacrificing fun. I personally have more fun when Im challenged then stomping people that didnt have a chance.

As for house rules they are useless in most cases, when I played at a tournament in the states they had a house rule that you could only enter through buildings doors and if your base was too big you couldnt go in. Needless to say I had this sprung on me while my wraithlord is standing outside a small hut.

The FAACers here ignore wound allocation because its "too gamey" along with anything else that is too difficult.

Sureshot05
09-10-2009, 15:03
Fluffy armies can also be dangerously competitive against other armies depending on the circumstance. As highlighted, the mech guard is a killer against the nid swarm.

I tend to find the best games are where my opponent and I have discussed a particular scenario or idea we've had and how we'd like to recreate it, and then go from there. By addressing at the start what you both want to see it allows for a fairer setup. On this basis, we've come up with some great, cinematic battles which have given us both great fun and a lot of happy memories.

Obviously some armies can be themed and styled appropriately (My Night Goblin horde) but simply will struggle against other themed opponents (Anything causing fear!) just simply because the army's inherent weakness may have been overemphasized. But I do feel that this is not limited to "fluffy" armies, but a feature which can hit all armies.

As a final note that has been said before far more eloquently on these forums, "fluff" is too hard to define as one person always has a different definition of fluff from another. The best solution is always to talk about it with your opponent. (and in this instance, come up with a mutually agreeable scenario, possibly based off of an event in the fluff!)

Awilla the Hun
09-10-2009, 16:05
For me, it's part rule of cool, part fluff, part getting that army as good as possible. They form an unholy trinity.

For example: I want a Bretonnian Peasant Army. I buy and, over several months, make the models. However, after due deliberation, I don't make it a solid mass of Red Guards throwing themselves at the enemy, becuase that would never win. I give them missile support, magic, light cavalry, even some Pegasi. These are effective troops, which can capably support the peasants on foot whilst remaining within fluff. I kit my characters out fairly minimally, but have effectiveness in mind also. And so on. This way, I have a force with a surprisingly high morale (if it keeps close together), with decent mobility, some missile fire, and the ability to tie down enemy heavy hitters with sheer weight of numbers whilst a mallet of heavy cavalry hits back. At the same time, I also get to shout propaganda slogans at the enemy, because it's that kind of Peasant Revolutionary army.

Bonzai
09-10-2009, 19:45
Lol, I play Necrons. There are no "Fluff" armies for us.

I was called cheesy because I had 2 units of immortals in a non-monolith or destroyer list. LOL. Next time I play him I'll drop down 2 monoliths or 15 destroyers on him...just so I am not playing him with my "cheesy" immortals.

Mannimarco
09-10-2009, 20:10
damn cheesy broken overpowered necrons with their cheesy broken overpowered codex with its cheesy no brainer unbeatable options :D

wingedserpant
09-10-2009, 21:56
there is a crossover point between fluffy and competitive, look at mech death guard

its pretty nasty on the table and is quite fluffy, this is where i try to get to with all the armies i build: trying to make it as fluffy as possible but still highly competitive

I'm the same. My tournament armies feature nob bikers but I also have regular bikers and squads of orks in trukks. Thats it.

Archangel_Ruined
09-10-2009, 23:57
I'd agree, I play quite a few armies. One of my favourites was an infantry horde marine army, very fluffy but very dangerous. It just goes to show that people who want to win can do so without resorting to nidzilla/tri falcon/melta spam guard or whatever the forums are declaring the filthiest army this week (I'm waiting for the SW haters to start, I'm sure it wont be too long before someone complains about a list so overpowered we all might as well quit the game and sell our toys now).

Solar_Eclipse
10-10-2009, 01:04
Here is the problem i have with these sorts of threads.

I find it strange that a person cannot have both a powerful army and ALSO have fun. I dont see why they are mutually exclusive.

In a RPG i am in, Vampire the Requiem, i am constantly being called a powergamer because i look at all my options and find the best ones which suit my character.

I dont see why this is powergaming, i want my character to be strong at what she is going to do, and thus, i pick the best options which suit her. What am i meant to do? Pick them at random like a chimp? Thats not characterisation, thats retarded.

Anyway, i dont see what 'the gamer mentality' has anything to do with having fun. If a person has fun through a well fought game, then they would have fun.

Fun isnt only in the perogative of people with weak armies, its an entirely subjective viewpoint.

Occulto
10-10-2009, 01:37
In a RPG i am in, Vampire the Requiem, i am constantly being called a powergamer because i look at all my options and find the best ones which suit my character.

I dont see why this is powergaming, i want my character to be strong at what she is going to do, and thus, i pick the best options which suit her. What am i meant to do? Pick them at random like a chimp? Thats not characterisation, thats retarded.

Depends what you want out of gaming.

I know when I used to run RPG sessions, I'd like to give the characters a couple of faults to overcome. There's no fun running a game where your players don't have to work for their success - been there, done that and watched everyone get bored.

It's even worse when one player insists on being good at everything they do. Everyone else has to think carefully about how they'll pool their skills to overcome a situation - while Mr-Superhero-McPerfect over there may as well not bother rolling any dice, he has such a high chance of success.

In the case of the original example one player has chosen an army that's got it's fair share of faults and strengths, and the other has just said: "oh we'll I'll design the perfect army to counter it."

He's not looking at the game as a way of seeing something interesting, he's using it as an opportunity to stack the odds in his favor to get an easy win. That misses the point IMHO.

Solar_Eclipse
10-10-2009, 01:44
Depends what you want out of gaming.

I know when I used to run RPG sessions, I'd like to give the characters a couple of faults to overcome. There's no fun running a game where your players don't have to work for their success - been there, done that and watched everyone get bored.

Oh i dont mean i dont have faults. If your familiar with the game im a Malkovian Ventrue who looks like i will get Malkavia, meaning that i am dropping humanity and gaining derangements damn fast.

Im Blood Potency 2 and already have 2 derangements, i take a minus to all abilities if i cant see running blood and if i DO see running blood, i have to add to it somehow.

So yeah, ive got alot of problems to overcome since if anyone finds out what i am, i will be a social pariah, and she is working herself into high society circles.


It's even worse when one player insists on being good at everything they do. Everyone else has to think carefully about how they'll pool their skills to overcome a situation - while Mr-Superhero-McPerfect over there may as well not bother rolling any dice, he has such a high chance of success.

This is why games with GM's are great, if someone has strength over the others, you put them into greater calamity and force them to require help.

ReveredChaplainDrake
10-10-2009, 03:45
If you're finding your run-of-the-mill cheese lists to be too stagnant, or if you just don't like making them, then make one list and don't change it until somebody beats you. Then encourage everybody else you play against to do the same. See who can go the longest with only one list. IMHO, the strongest army list out there isn't the one that can get the most decisive victory, but the list that can avoid losing to the greatest variety of lists in the current metagame. (Plus, totally wiping somebody out is about as fun as getting totally wiped out.) When your goal in list writing is to take on a broader variety of opponents, rather than tailoring to beat one, you get lists that "last" progressively longer each time, up to a certain maximum build, and you'd be surprised how fun and interesting your lists wind up being. It's also a great way to go about building an army because, if you don't know what to buy, you can always focus your purchases on stuff that plugs the vulnerabilities in your current list.

Giganthrax
10-10-2009, 03:50
It's even worse when one player insists on being good at everything they do. Everyone else has to think carefully about how they'll pool their skills to overcome a situation - while Mr-Superhero-McPerfect over there may as well not bother rolling any dice, he has such a high chance of success.
Well, this is not the fault of the player. A game should have a system that balances the good things against the bad things.

If players can easily make perfect characters & armies, then that's game's fault, not the players. Players shouldn't be expected to penalize themselves just to get a balanced gaming experience. The internal game balance should do that.

40k is actually pretty good at this. It's hard to make a *perfect* list. Some armies, by design, are lacking in certain areas (tyranids and orks in anti-tank, tau and guard in close combat, etc.). Other armies (MEQ, mainly) can do everything pretty well, but then the point costs will severely limit the amount of models they can field, so they'll end up lacking in numbers, etc.

Ofc, making an army just to counter another particular army is both bad sportsmanship (if it's done in friendly games) and bad judgment (if it's done in tournaments, where it's impossible to make a counter-list since everyone is coming with all-comers lists).

IcedAnimals
10-10-2009, 07:07
I have made "fluffy" lists that some people view as "cheesy" For example I have always favored slaanesh as my chaos god. My chaos army worship Slaanesh.

So I have lash of submission and a bunch of noise marines. Some people see "omg lash deamon princes? cheese!" But I also take deamonettes and my center piece to my army is my forgeworld Keeper of Secrets. And I think most current chaos players will agree that deamons are kind of bad and bland right now.

My list is VERY slaanesh. I do not divert into any other gods realm. That is a very fluffy list. However lash of submission alone is considered "cheese" and people outside of my tight gaming circle will often refuse to play against the army.

Same issue for my brother. He LOVED the idea of speed freak orks. So he has a ton of bikers, nob bikers, deff koptas, and other assorted vehicles. However Nob Bikers alone are considered "cheese" and a lot of people wont play him.

My death korp army was called cheesy because I wanted them to be like an actual ww1 army and just have tons of inaccurate barrage weapons. But because I can hide my army behind terrain and still hit my opponents its "cheesy" I think that word is just thrown around too much and people should play more to have fun and talk to the other player and discuss the hobby than worry so much about how one model is cheesy

darker4308
10-10-2009, 07:12
There are ways to play 40k where fluff armies win. These situations are hard to set up and require basically that both armies be custom built for the battle and you use objectives. You might want to have a "GM" and use armies set up by the GM with a friend if you really want to play fluffy games. It makes 40k more like roleplaying than competative though .... you also need people who know what they are doing to GM.

big squig
10-10-2009, 07:14
With the exception of a nob biker rush there really aren't any cheesy armies in 40k. It's pretty well balanced.

Note: I also hear a bloodcrusher daemon army is really unfair too, but I've never fought it.

laudarkul
10-10-2009, 10:09
You can play to win but you also can play to win and have fun. Against a Nid's player witl lot's of MC's I can bring 2xLRE and 2xLRP and couple of Chimera's/HH and just thrashing him quickly, but I think that the guy with that army will look strange at me whem I'm going to ask him for a rematch.

Ianos
10-10-2009, 10:57
With the exception of a nob biker rush there really aren't any cheesy armies in 40k. It's pretty well balanced.

Note: I also hear a bloodcrusher daemon army is really unfair too, but I've never fought it.

It's funny you say that when blood crushers can really be a hard counter to nobikers. :D

Oh and TH/SS termies (especially with libbie to deny even the cybork save) or shining spears+doom, or 2 defilers/assault dreads/soulgrinders. Then there is the psycker squad + on my target from IG...:rolleyes:i will pretty soon have to remove them from my army, they are basically in there cause i was getting hot for playing my orks faster and they can fill up a lot of points.

P.S. Best for last, JOTWW...

bigcheese76
10-10-2009, 13:38
Its fun some times to write a kick ass army list and wipe your opponent off the board, but i much prefer games based around a story or an army with a specific theme. For example me and 4 mates are planning a game based around the First War for Armegeddon. We read the story in the new Space Wolves codex and just had to try it out.

George Dorn
11-10-2009, 08:33
If you find a gamer that plays a lot of Magic and builds an army with the same
mindset he builds a deck, then often it will be 'broken' fluff - wise. But you have to respect the fact that it's a codex-legal army.
One of the hardest armies to beat at our club is a Sisters army. She has put together a strong list that has six Penitent Engines and plenty of heavy support, with minimum troops. We all find it hard to deal with, but nobody gets upset and starts calling it cheesey.
The mission and deployment rules are OK as far as they go, but if you can find someone who is prepared to have a go with home made or custom written scenarios, then I would bet that you will have a good game.

The Red Scourge
11-10-2009, 11:24
Give me 5 seconds and I'll come up with the "fluff" to make any list "fluffy".

Ravenous
11-10-2009, 15:14
Give me 5 seconds and I'll come up with the "fluff" to make any list "fluffy".

thats exactly it, its all in the eye of the beholder, hell you can make terminators that fly and marines toting multilasers instead of bolters and kill 1000 Orks each according to the fluff.

Gustovic
11-10-2009, 17:16
I use only fluffy lists, so they aren't very cheesy. (I use the IA I updated Armoured Company).
Fluffy lists are hard to play with, and they need to be tested and tested again.

Darkspear
11-10-2009, 17:19
From my experience in warseer, most people play to win. I often read about people being afraid to use more fluffy/less over the top lists simply because they are afraid that their opponent will take a cheesey list.

Ravenous
11-10-2009, 17:24
From my experience in warseer, most people play to win. I often read about people being afraid to use more fluffy/less over the top lists simply because they are afraid that their opponent will take a cheesey list.

Its more about wasting money on things that will knowingly underperform.

Getting your ass handed to you time and again because of the fluff is only fun for so long when you start making effective lists with fluff in mind.

And in the end if I could take a army of 100 callidus assassins whose to say its not the fluff? Half the crap in the books have the most insane things imaginable, like a guardsmen killing a greater daemon or human children slaugthering striking scorpions.

The fluff is retarded, so people make armies in show of that.

The Red Scourge
11-10-2009, 17:43
The thing is, armies aren't balanced to the point where you can field an army of super-heavy tanks vs. an army of guardsmen armed with chewing gum and sharpened turnips, and it really shouldn't be either.

What really is needed, is that every unit type has a place and a function to fill on the battle field and they are priced relatively, so none are left out because of superiority.

This of course becomes increasingly difficult, when you decide to have a large variety of armies with each their own unique playstyle.

The game will never be balanced. This doesn't mean it can't be fun, it just means that it won't be fit for tournament play - unless of course you accept that those tournaments will dominated by certain armies and certain powerbuilds. Luckily theres a human element, and most of us - I hope - prefer winning in spite of our lists instead of because of it :)

Ravenous
11-10-2009, 17:46
The thing is, armies aren't balanced to the point where you can field an army of super-heavy tanks vs. an army of guardsmen armed with chewing gum, and it really shouldn't be either.

What really is needed, is that every unit type has a place and a function to fill on the battle field and they are priced relatively, so none are left out because of superiority.

This of course becomes increasingly difficult, when you decide to have a large variety of armies with each their own unique playstyle.

And codex creep enters into that, its kind of like how guard can pretty much do everthing Eldar can do but cheaper now. Or how orks can be given to any bad general and still be a threat because of how effective the standard boy is.

What it really boils down to is: if you want to play fluffy then play with other like minded people and make fluffy scenerios, if you just want to play the game then just take whatever and play the game. Its all about the effort on your part, you can expect everyone to want to go out of their way in order to play the game you want.

You want fluff then get off your ass and organize fluff even if it means you only get one game a month.

StefDa
11-10-2009, 18:01
I base an army around a concept and then work within that framework to give me the best shot of winning. More players should do this, I feel.

Rewarding players with armies which lean more towards the fluff is a good concept, however it is very hard to implement except in a tournament with judging conditions granting bonuses for armies based around the spirit of the game rather than abusing the letter.
The trouble is, the moment you codify anything in rules, it can be abused and people will do so to get an advantage.

I basically do the same thing with the Raven Guard I'm buying and building (right now: Two Captains, a Chaplain, a Librarian and a 5-man Vanguard squad). I want loads of speedy infantry. What is the best way to do this? And then I experiment within these borders.

Badger[Fr]
11-10-2009, 18:11
There is no such thing as codex creep. By your line of reasoning, Space Marine and Daemon armies should be utterly dominating their older Eldar and Ork counterparts, which clearly isn't the case.


its kind of like how guard can pretty much do everthing Eldar can do but cheaper now.
Shenanigans. The two armies have very few things in common.

Loki73
11-10-2009, 18:14
I got a good group in my LGS. We mostly play for fun there. I usually ask my opponent if they brought a tourney list or an all commers "fun" list.

LKHERO
11-10-2009, 18:35
This is how I pick an army from scratch:

1. Read the codex and the fluff.
2. Find something that appeals to my character and my playstyle; Salamanders and Space Wolves for example - both hot-tempered but noble Space Marine Chapters that rely on short-ranged combat.
3. Pick a leader to lead them: Vulkan He'stan and Ragnar Blackmane.
4. Build the army around them. Not just any army, but an army that's worthy of their name. I go through many many revisions and min-max the hell out of it.
5. Now I have a theme, a character, and a powerful army built around it. I am happy.

brightblade
11-10-2009, 21:48
Isn't this really an issue of what is going on within the players head. There are some who are only happy when they have slaughtered their opponent with an auto-win cheese fest list. This is gamesmanship. Do what it takes to win. (I avoid these players.)

Others like a competetive game full of tough, tactical decisions, with the dice playing a part, that sets off a colouful, exciting and a fun time for all. Seeing the army they have poured love into, fight fairly against a like minded opponent and his army. This is sportsmanship. Play to win but treat defeat and victory with equally good spirits and treating your opponent with respect.

I know I prefer sportsmanship over the other. I make themed armies but they are also competetive. Losing to someone who just.. has ..to.. win is no fun. Fortunately, powergamers are like a pothole. Occasionally you will drive through one but start paying attention again and they are easy to steer around. Then it's smooth roads ahead on the gaming highway.

@LKHERO. Spot on.

Spot on. :)

Sekhmet
11-10-2009, 22:05
Itís based on the armyís composition and the units you select will give you bonus points e.g. no 3 landradiers 8 Mc etc. and a set number of requiremnets give the fluffer list a bigger starting advantage. Hopefully with fluffy players getting rewarded and given and advantage we can all become lactose intolerant.


A few problems with this solution:
1) The person creating these rules had better get advice from numerous people that specialize in one or two armies. I've read every codex multiple times and have played with a large variety of lists, but I would still like an expert to assist with rules balance. I've seen one of these tournaments where they put down hard rules that penalized "unfluffy" lists... the rules horrendously neutered Necrons when they already have a very rough time of winning.
2) Who's to say that a spearhead of 4 landraiders is not fluffy? Or an Elysian list with 6-9 Vendettas? This was covered already, but its good to repeat. Even 2 Lash + non-Slaanesh lists can be fluffy... ever hear of the Black Legion?
3) People who like to optimize their list will always find a way. If you lay down rules like "you lose 2 pts in list score for every landraider over 1", they'll take it into account and find the best balance between list score and the list's power. It's not hard to work around restrictions.

madprophet
12-10-2009, 01:56
The thing about WAAC armies is that they next codex to come out will most likely break them. I have found these so called 'power armies' are one trick ponies and once you find the key to them, they tend to unravel pretty quickly.

I play guard and tend to stick to large blocks of infantry backed up by heavy weapons and a few tanks and sentinels. Since I collected the force, no codex has forced me to do more than reorganize it and add at most a squad here or there. No, I don't win all the time but I do win more often than I lose and I have a good record against so called 'cheese' forces.

All fast armies break down if you deny them speed - template weapons and hit and runs with your fast attack can do that. Powerhammer armies are very susceptible to a well-executed refused flank attack - learn to do this correctly and you will guarantee yourself an edge against most players. The armies that give me the most trouble are other well balanced forces run by other experienced wargamers and that's as it should be.

Occulto
12-10-2009, 07:42
Well, this is not the fault of the player. A game should have a system that balances the good things against the bad things.

That always presumes some kind of baseline of what's "good" and what's "bad."

In the case of an RPG - if all players run uber-characters then the GM can plan accordingly. Throw bigger opponents at them, get them to solve tougher tasks and so on. I know some players prefer that heroic superhero style of play and it is fun.

Other players aren't interested in slaying gods or saving the world and prefer a game where a few "average joes" run around and do whatever. Again, that kind of play has it's own fun.

But if not everyone's on the same page (or power level) then the game's not going to work well. Cater for the weaker characters and the stronger characters get bored swatting low level enemies for poor rewards. Do vice versa and chances are half the players are either going to be sitting there with dead characters very soon or spend most of the game relying on the strong to do everything.

The thing about 40K is, this mismatched gaming happens all the time because it's a ruleset (like an RPG) that's designed to allow a range of levels of games. Some players love fielding the epic scale conflicts, while others want low scale unit combats. One player wants legendary characters duking it out, while the other's happy with a few unspectacular grunts toiling away on the battlefield.

When two players approach it from different angles, they tend to get frustrated (same as the RPGers) either because they're either getting spanked or not getting a challenge. I don't think the rules can be blamed - because anyone who's played more than a handful of games or logged onto a forum knows that imbalances exist. I think players need to be more responsible for setting their own limits or making their expectations clear.

Let's say you want to tune your GT tournament list and I've brought my soft fluffy list. If we both know what sort of game we've prepared for in advance, we can save ourselves a potentially pointless game if we want. Nothing wrong with you saying: "I actually want to practise against real WAAC stuff."

Where this thread is slightly different, is that one player has attempted to organise their preferred style of game in advance. Tone it down, try some different combos and explore that other side of the game where players aren't necessarily tuning the crap out of their lists.

Unfortunately, they haven't got the style of game that they wanted because instead of replying in kind - their opponents have just licked their lips at the thought of a juicy gaunt swarm and tuned the crap out of their lists to take advantage of it.

The rules are the rules - and rules imbalance is a topic that's been done to death. But I think it's sad when people are unwilling to put that "must destroy enemy" mindset aside and would prefer an easy massacre to a hard fought game.

Malice313
12-10-2009, 08:14
To return to the original question:

I have found that people new to the game will often try to refine an army to it most powerful with each passing battle.

After a while you will find that players either:

1. Leave the hobby because they are bored of this and are unimaginative enough to find new ways of enjoying the hobby.

2. Start to expand their army and look at new ways to play it experimenting with new units.

3. Obsessively keep refining the army until a new codex comes out and they have to restart this process... at which point they throw a wobbly.

Its also unfortunate that most new rules and codices target the third kind of player, forcing the stagnant players in the hobby to actually send their one trick pony to the glue factory and BUY SOME NEW MODELS FOR A BLOODY CHANGE.

The trick is to avoid playing such players. Its hard to in tournament (which is why I avoid them altogether). Its a little harder to a clubs. I'm just blunt and say "I've already played that army. I'll give you a game when you get a couple of new units." which puts the onus on them.

Actually I just stick to a group of veteran players who I know who have several large armies of 5,000+ pts painted and play 1,500-2,500 point battles. This ensures that you will find a new mix every time and that you never know what sort of list your up against.

precinctomega
12-10-2009, 08:27
We've got a tournament coming up in my local club and I'm enjoying a debate with the organizer over comp scoring.

I am a long-time "fluffy" player. I build armies according to which units I like the look of and write histories and backgrounds (usually involving long records of ignominious defeats...) for the units and characters.

But I really, really dislike comp. If an army can be made within the rules of a codex, then it's fluffy, by definition. If a player goes to the trouble to fine-tuning an army list and learning how to play it to its strengths, then well done them! The best tournaments occur when lots of players of this sort come together: a real test of hobby skill.

Those of us who don't do that, don't win tournaments. That shouldn't stop us entering, of course. We don't play the game to win, in any case. The objective, as I've often said, may be to win, but the point is to have fun. I'll have fun, win or lose. If you need to win to have fun, be my guest.

R.

Maarten K
12-10-2009, 08:35
peer-presure works like a charm. In small scale tournaments most people thet participate are friend or at least acquintances. If anybody shows up with a powergamed armylist, the ammount of criticism they receive will most likely force them to change their list, or more likely stop them form taking such a list to begin with.

In frienly games simply refusing to play a powergamed list will stop most people form taking one, unless you play inn a very compatitive environment, in which case you will have to swich lists or find new opponents.

Bartali
12-10-2009, 08:45
The problem I have is the way gamers I play a lot desire to Win not have fun, almost every game i have played in the last 2 years has consisted of ":cheese:" and power gamers. I would quite like a fluffy game but they are pointless the last few times i have arranged "fluff" games with my nids people roll out fully mech and my gaunts just become target practice.


To the OP - Are you sure it's not just because you're unhappy with current 'nids performance against mech ?

The 'cheese' whining normally comes from someone who's just lost a game, it's going to be rare that the winner whines that their opponents list is un-fluffy.

While both people should have fun while playing, it's a competitive game with a winner and a looser. 9 times out of 10, the looser isn't going to of enjoyed it as much as the winner

genestealer_baldric
12-10-2009, 09:02
The point of give me 5 seconds i can make fluff for any army ive just made is excatly the point iam getting at, it should be i have fluff give me 5 min and i will fit an army to that instead.

i surpose its the spirit of the game that i find dull and repetative, that fun can come through compleate dominance seem to be the mindset that is taught to new players. I have personaly found the closer a game is the more rewarding and addictive. I must admit i find That at the mo I have to powergame to be on a evenish playing feild, but it turns most games into a bland grey atmosphere.

Playing hard in a tourinment is acceptable because everybody going in designing a list to the best it can and win. Testing that list is fine as long as you tell your opponet before so they can decide if they whant to play a list like it or seek another game.

maybe if we can also convuince the new members of the hobby the objectivite is to have fun in a nice atmosphere rather than being uber competative. But i think this mind set is fosterd outside in almost every aspect of normal life and so is natural, we just need some people to understand that and adapt accordingly.

Malice313
12-10-2009, 10:34
I have personaly found the closer a game is the more rewarding and addictive. I must admit i find That at the mo I have to powergame to be on a evenish playing feild, but it turns most games into a bland grey atmosphere.

Actually this a good point. If the games are just one sided routes I might as well just watch the Australian cricket team pants whoever is next on the schedule.

A complete massacre turns into "going through the motions" about half way through. Because of its ease few events are memorable. Your opponent is probably getting bored with the game and unless you are the type of person who is comfortable (or to socially inept to notice) that they are adding to the tedium there is probably better ways to interact with them.

A close game has highlights, turning points, pivotal decisions, streaks of luck (good and bad) etc. MUCH more interesting.

Sekhmet
12-10-2009, 10:41
The point of give me 5 seconds i can make fluff for any army ive just made is excatly the point iam getting at, it should be i have fluff give me 5 min and i will fit an army to that instead.


Let's say list building type A makes a list and fits fluff to the list.
Type B would be finding fluff then building a list to fit the fluff.

There is a huge variety of lists that type A could create, not infinite, but very very large.

There is a relatively small variety of list that type B could create, perhaps one per "army" style. Say, one Cadian, one Valhallan, one Tanith, one DKoK, one Armageddon, etc. list per point level. Thus you're saying there should only be one or two Space Wolf or Blood Angels or Dark Angels (or a couple more for DA) lists at each points level. If you so strongly believe in this, why don't you just make all the possible lists for your favored point level, say 1500. Then say everyone must use one of these pre-designed lists because frankly, that's what you're saying they should be forced to do. And if they won't take what you consider is a fluffy list, as in one of the few lists per codex, then kick them from your FLGS/house/tournament/group.



maybe if we can also convuince the new members of the hobby the objectivite is to have fun in a nice atmosphere rather than being uber competative. But i think this mind set is fosterd outside in almost every aspect of normal life and so is natural, we just need some people to understand that and adapt accordingly.
Why do you need to remind people to have fun? If a hobby isn't fun, you don't do it... that's the entire idea behind a hobby, it's something extra in your life that you find enjoyable. If people want to be competitive, let them. If people want to play 40k like they play a LARP session, all the more power to them. Besides being concerned for my hearing, I don't care one bit if people scream "WAAAAAAAAAAAAGH" next to me, but I wouldn't do it.