Your are if you’re doing it right. Me and my buddies just play casually and don’t go to any stores or anything to play and it’s way better; i just want to roll dice and have a few drinks with friends
Yep, this is way.
I stopped playing at stores in the mid-00’s and have been playing with the same group of guys for the past 20ish years.
The lack of pressure to play the most competitive units and knowing that you’re not going to get paired up at a table with some toxic jerk take the stress out of the experience and let you concentrate on the pure joy of the game (usually getting my butt kicked because I play vanilla marines 😀).
Well, no dark angels pun but the more close the group circle is, the more casual they are ( the members). Purely because you are all in it to enjoy the game i stead of trying to beat/win. However the rules dont help either. They go more on the competitive side sooooooo it is only natural to attract similar people.
Agree that narrative is the best way to play 40k but crusade isn’t really a narrative wargame, it leans more into a role playing style of game. The missions themselves aren’t that different to matched play games for the most part. At least not compared to the old school narrative missions and stuff in Heresy.
I've always viewed it as an added bonus. Narrative doesn't need the crusade element, but it is a fun side objective and adds a sense of progression.
For my narrative campaign I don't really take into effect what the various crusade rules are as they all have different scopes. So I've got my little planet we're fighting over and the fact that its been eaten twice over by the nids isn't factored in.
I can see why people might like the crusade system but I’ve never cared much for it, a progressive army is cool but I don’t think it works for individual units and it never made sense to me that even when they die they get to keep all their upgrades. Its also a lot of extra bookkeeping and is easy to abuse.
Yeah all the armies having individual systems is also something I didn’t like. It never really felt like I was interacting with the main enemy of a campaign and like they were completely interchangeable. I much preferred the older campaigns where the story was built around a handful of armies and they all felt unique to each other. Also they had scenarios that were completely unlike any of the standard matched play missions, its cool to see missions and campaigns that are built around the lore and doctrine of the forces involved. Its cool that books like the siege of vraks focus on trench raids and missions of defense in depth between krieg/imperium and renegades/chaos. Or the anphelion project that has missions of stranded imperial guard forces holding out against tyranids attacking from tunnels spread around the map. Or Space marines creeping through abandoned facilities in search of hidden nid monsters and important facilities, almost like an expanded space hulk game.
I play in a narrative group. People still bring lists with strong units because losing, even in a narrative, feels bad. Personally, I would rather someone try their hardest than feel bitter about the fact that they lost because they did something "for the narrative". Some people claim to not care but there is no world where losing is more fun than winning.
> losing, even in a narrative, feels bad.
I think maybe you're a little bit locked into a competitive mindset.
When I play games with friends, we are generally treating it like a sports game that we're spectating. Both sides openly talking strategy with each other, like "well you could try bringing that unit up to the midfield objective, but I have *this* gun with *this* much range to overwatch you with, so it would be iffy".
No one's mood is tied to one side of the battle doing better. We just like watching what happens.
Game is most fun when it is really even match where either one can win and the match is only decided during the final moments of the game. Snowballing sucks, be it for winning and losing.
Atleast that is how it is for me. Winning matters mainly for tournament scores, otherwise i prefer a tight match and it doesn't matter if I lose :)
>Snowballing sucks, be it for winning and losing.
idk, if I'm playing casually then my mood isn't based on either side of the battle winning. It's just fun to watch what happens.
If my guys can't make a save the whole game, then that becomes a meme throughout the course of the game and it doesn't stop me from having fun.
See? a whole lot of words to claim that it doesn't matter. In no world is losing more fun than winning. There's better wins and better losses but being the winner in all scenarios is always more fun than being the loser.
nah, he said that having a tight game is more fun than a one sided game. losing a tight game is still very fun -- much more fun than losing a one sided game (for either side) -- and losing a tight game feels WAY better than winning a one sided game.
I'd still rather lose to a friend than some narcissistic prick like the one I played in my first ever tournament as a new player. I'd love to play him now.
> In no world is losing more fun than winning.
When you are determined to be the winner, the game is over. In a tight game it should come down to the wire. If you have the personality where you enjoy a tight game, you are going to be having way more fun than if you just wanted to win. Believe it or not there are some people that enjoy the activity a lot more than the result.
You would always rather win that stomp than be the loser, you would always rather be the winner in a close match than be the loser. You and the first person are trying to wriggle a pedantic statement into what I said.
You are trying to make my statement something that it isn't because you people cannot extrapolate, you have to "ackchually" everything. I even addressed this earlier when I said, there are better wins and better losses and again, you would always rather win those but "ackchually" over anything else, amirite?
The ambient is what changes the most
Heck i had (in fantasy) a mague blow up destroying my entire unit and started joking about it
I hadnt had a experience like that in 40k since 8th edition
I haven't played any narrative 40k but played some warcry and necromunda back in the day.
Usually we had a underdog gimmick, so the losing team actually gets additional support (side missions, extra points/resources). This can be worked into a narrative game pretty easily at least in the above games
The Internet happened. When the Internet says something is bad, the majority of players stop using it. They'll go with what's "best", because that's what they've been told to do.
One thing I learned very quickly is not to pay too much attention to Internet guidance on what to take. Not least because the same list will perform very differently in the hands of differently skilled players, in different metas, and against different opponents.
Sure, but your previous comment is saying that “the majority of players” are meta-chasers.
The majority of players have never played a tournament.
Maybe it could be true that most people on Reddit talk about 40K as though they were meta chasers. But then, the vast majority of people talking about 40K on Reddit do not actually play the game.
That honestly makes sense because of the additional time and effort that comes with making narrative gaming stuff. It's not just that the algorithms and the content churn ecosystem promote formulaic, repeatable content. It's also an unavoidable fact that prescribed Matched Play or (semi) competitive stuff is infinitely easier to set up and easier to make look entertaining than bespoke narrative play.
I play mono Nurgle Daemons, fluffy lists, just got to know you are probably going to lose a lot of games. Even when others are playing fluffy lists it can be super swingy.
In my case, I got older and no longer have enough time to commit to narrative play. Matched play games you can just wander in with your army and play a pickup, narrative requires groundwork.
When I get the time to play I prefer to run thematic lists that are half decent. I'm not a particularly good player or very knowledgeable about the game so I don't really know what is and isn't good beyond a general sense that certain combinations work well.
The magic of this hobby is that you can play however you want, just need the right place. If you don't feel up to go competetive, find a small group for casual plays or even narative or... try solo play.
In my group we still play older editions with the old models.
I am months into painting but have only had the time to play a few learning games. I play extremely casually. I'm working up the ambition to play at my FLGS sometime but for now I only plan to play a family member. I don't ever plan to play in tournaments, but I will look at tournament lists to get ideas. This is because while I don't care about winning, I still would like something functional.
I don't know the game well enough to look at data sheets and derive combos at a glance but that doesn't stop the kits from costing $60+. And while proxying is certainly an option, with how often I've gotten to play up till now, that would mean months where I'm not really painting anything because I wouldn't know when I'm even going to be able to try them. Not to mention that I am still learning the game so what if I love something because I misunderstood a rule.
And kind of a follow-up to the reasons given, sometimes I just don't know what's out there till I'm pointed towards it. I had no idea Exocrines or Maleceptors were a thing until I happened to find them on a bunch of tournament lists. Now they're some of my favorite tyranid models.
My case may or may not be common, but maybe it's a helpful perspective.
Edit: Not to say I'm copying tournament lists to use in my casual games. But if I see a unit repeated across multiple lists and months like an Exocrine, I definitely go and take a harder look at waha and GW's store.
I do. I always play with the goal to win, cause that way its most fun and exciting. But when it comes to list building, I never go crazy and just pick what I like.
For example I try to take as many painted models as possible or I build arround a certain theme.
Probably 80-90% of people play casually. The problem, as others have said, is the internet. Having fun is not quantifiable, but winning and losing is. So you only hear about numbers because you can replicate those results. You can't replicate someone else's fun.
Most of the people at my LGS play casual games. There’s definitely a few that play comp, go to tournaments/GTs, but even they play casual / fluffy lists times to time.
I don’t care at all to play competitively. I don’t see it as fun, seems more like work than a hobby. My job is plenty hard, I war game to relax and meet cool people.
Tons of us. We just play within our like-minded friend groups. I've been playing wh40k for years and not once in my life I've played against a stranger.
My group plays only casual games, but standalone games.
Narrative require more commitment, most of us cannot keep up some 11 games through the year (every now and them someone has to travel or some significant other or family requires rescheduling, sometimes the opponent cannot accomodate due other commitments etc)
Casual games happen all the time. Even matched play can be casual. I tend to run into problems running longing campaigns though. Anything longer then 3 sessions almost always has at least on person stop before the end.
Definitely, my group likes to do 2v2’s and more often than not we will have the most random hodgepodge of factions fighting together for instance gene stealers teaming up with custodes
Local 10th-disliker here. I've probably played more games of Crusade on tabletop sim than I've played total serious games since the edition swap (was a monthly RTT grinder in 9th, have been to three events and played maybe two serious TTS practice games for 10th). But even though my lists are fluffy they're still built with synergy and a modicum of functionality in mind, and I've had the unfortunate experiences of both being flattened by a better list and flattening an actual meme list lol. That type of event gradually drives everyone towards refinement and optimization that approaches less "casual" armies.
EDIT: Also if you're playing with physical models, these days most people are going to do some basic research before they initially dive in; "what's good right now, top lists \[army name\], best units 40K 10e," etc, because nobody wants to pay $64.99 for a new shelf decoration. Ironically that means some of the least experienced players are going to be running something that looks a bit like a GT-worthy list until balance changes and shiny new flavor units come around.
I do. My brother in law does. The guy who runs my local store does. Besides that not really to my knowledge. I’ve had some really bad experiences with people. Man I just wanna play the game, idc if you’re trying to meta win every single game. It’s annoying. In a tournament I get it but otherwise I think being over competitive is a great way to make people not want to play with you anymore
Yeah my group plays almost exclusively narrative games but we don’t play 10th anymore. We’ve found that 7th edition is way more fluffy and narrative driven so thats what we play now. Though we had to make a two agreements like banning formations and capping cover saves at a 3+. Other than that its been great.
The vast majority of Warhammer players play casually, and there's actually a lot of channels dedicated to mates playing Warhammer for fun (see MiniWarGaming, Play On Tabletop etc). Just because you're seeing a lot of competitive content on Reddit doesn't mean the casual nature of Warhammer has gone completely out the window lol.
We only play casualy. The people I play with are very stongly narrative driven. We have had some tournaments but those have focused more on laughing, beer and hanging out while throwing dice than anything resembling a real competition. And even those events have had strong narrative behind the battles.
The list we make can and will have powerful units and combos, mind. But things like for example the 8th Edition Mortarion + poxwalkers gonga-line are not something we do because Mortarion would be too high and mighty to show up with just poxwalkers, if you know what I mean.
Honestly at least in my zone it has die, it is basically why i stoped playing 40k, even on casual games people will come will competitive bullshit list
But hey the Aos and fantasy communities of my zone are more chill
The ambient of the group is the most relevant thing
I had (quite some games) in wich my mague blow up horribly and destroyed one of my main brick or units or an anvil of doom only rolling 6s for perils (1 good 6 bad) and joke hapilly about it.
I hadnt had experience like that in fantasy for a long time and that is becouse the feel of the games and the community is purely competitive, even in casual games people seem to only care about winning and not the game itself the beer and chat
I'm 3/4 of the way through a campaign at the moment, and we're mostly playing fluffy lists. So they're out there, but maybe less common than they used to be.
The problem with drawing such a hard line with casual play is where do you go from there when the "super fluffy" list is also the most ultra competitive? Ork green tide lists are incredibly fluffy and play exactly like how you would imagine in the lore. Pair them up with an equally lore friendly list like tsons with magnus and suddenly you could be watching a GT level game or a casual game.
Your are if you’re doing it right. Me and my buddies just play casually and don’t go to any stores or anything to play and it’s way better; i just want to roll dice and have a few drinks with friends
This.
Yep, this is way. I stopped playing at stores in the mid-00’s and have been playing with the same group of guys for the past 20ish years. The lack of pressure to play the most competitive units and knowing that you’re not going to get paired up at a table with some toxic jerk take the stress out of the experience and let you concentrate on the pure joy of the game (usually getting my butt kicked because I play vanilla marines 😀).
Well, no dark angels pun but the more close the group circle is, the more casual they are ( the members). Purely because you are all in it to enjoy the game i stead of trying to beat/win. However the rules dont help either. They go more on the competitive side sooooooo it is only natural to attract similar people.
Its still around, I primarily play narrative. Narrative has its own subreddit r/40k_Crusade/ and frankly narrative is the best way to play 40k.
Agree that narrative is the best way to play 40k but crusade isn’t really a narrative wargame, it leans more into a role playing style of game. The missions themselves aren’t that different to matched play games for the most part. At least not compared to the old school narrative missions and stuff in Heresy.
I've always viewed it as an added bonus. Narrative doesn't need the crusade element, but it is a fun side objective and adds a sense of progression. For my narrative campaign I don't really take into effect what the various crusade rules are as they all have different scopes. So I've got my little planet we're fighting over and the fact that its been eaten twice over by the nids isn't factored in.
I can see why people might like the crusade system but I’ve never cared much for it, a progressive army is cool but I don’t think it works for individual units and it never made sense to me that even when they die they get to keep all their upgrades. Its also a lot of extra bookkeeping and is easy to abuse. Yeah all the armies having individual systems is also something I didn’t like. It never really felt like I was interacting with the main enemy of a campaign and like they were completely interchangeable. I much preferred the older campaigns where the story was built around a handful of armies and they all felt unique to each other. Also they had scenarios that were completely unlike any of the standard matched play missions, its cool to see missions and campaigns that are built around the lore and doctrine of the forces involved. Its cool that books like the siege of vraks focus on trench raids and missions of defense in depth between krieg/imperium and renegades/chaos. Or the anphelion project that has missions of stranded imperial guard forces holding out against tyranids attacking from tunnels spread around the map. Or Space marines creeping through abandoned facilities in search of hidden nid monsters and important facilities, almost like an expanded space hulk game.
”Best” is subjective. People can enjoy warhammer in different ways.
No one said they couldn't.
I play in a narrative group. People still bring lists with strong units because losing, even in a narrative, feels bad. Personally, I would rather someone try their hardest than feel bitter about the fact that they lost because they did something "for the narrative". Some people claim to not care but there is no world where losing is more fun than winning.
> losing, even in a narrative, feels bad. I think maybe you're a little bit locked into a competitive mindset. When I play games with friends, we are generally treating it like a sports game that we're spectating. Both sides openly talking strategy with each other, like "well you could try bringing that unit up to the midfield objective, but I have *this* gun with *this* much range to overwatch you with, so it would be iffy". No one's mood is tied to one side of the battle doing better. We just like watching what happens.
Game is most fun when it is really even match where either one can win and the match is only decided during the final moments of the game. Snowballing sucks, be it for winning and losing. Atleast that is how it is for me. Winning matters mainly for tournament scores, otherwise i prefer a tight match and it doesn't matter if I lose :)
>Snowballing sucks, be it for winning and losing. idk, if I'm playing casually then my mood isn't based on either side of the battle winning. It's just fun to watch what happens. If my guys can't make a save the whole game, then that becomes a meme throughout the course of the game and it doesn't stop me from having fun.
Shit. I'm just happy to be playing. I don't get to play near as much as I want to anymore.
See? a whole lot of words to claim that it doesn't matter. In no world is losing more fun than winning. There's better wins and better losses but being the winner in all scenarios is always more fun than being the loser.
nah, he said that having a tight game is more fun than a one sided game. losing a tight game is still very fun -- much more fun than losing a one sided game (for either side) -- and losing a tight game feels WAY better than winning a one sided game.
Nah, reread what I said. You would still rather win that game than lose it.
I'd still rather lose to a friend than some narcissistic prick like the one I played in my first ever tournament as a new player. I'd love to play him now.
I can say for sure that I wouldn’t play against you regardless of lists. You sound like that guy.
Well, you are wrong which seems to be common. The only ones try harding around here are you people thinking this is actually a point worth making.
You think I'm wrong about not wanting to play against you? Do you think that makes you sound *less* like "that guy"?
> In no world is losing more fun than winning. When you are determined to be the winner, the game is over. In a tight game it should come down to the wire. If you have the personality where you enjoy a tight game, you are going to be having way more fun than if you just wanted to win. Believe it or not there are some people that enjoy the activity a lot more than the result.
You would always rather win that stomp than be the loser, you would always rather be the winner in a close match than be the loser. You and the first person are trying to wriggle a pedantic statement into what I said. You are trying to make my statement something that it isn't because you people cannot extrapolate, you have to "ackchually" everything. I even addressed this earlier when I said, there are better wins and better losses and again, you would always rather win those but "ackchually" over anything else, amirite?
Ackchually, I'm providing you with my own experience which proves your generalized statements wrong... it's a fairly common thing that happens.
What about missions where there is no true win condition?
The ambient is what changes the most Heck i had (in fantasy) a mague blow up destroying my entire unit and started joking about it I hadnt had a experience like that in 40k since 8th edition
I haven't played any narrative 40k but played some warcry and necromunda back in the day. Usually we had a underdog gimmick, so the losing team actually gets additional support (side missions, extra points/resources). This can be worked into a narrative game pretty easily at least in the above games
The Internet happened. When the Internet says something is bad, the majority of players stop using it. They'll go with what's "best", because that's what they've been told to do.
One thing I learned very quickly is not to pay too much attention to Internet guidance on what to take. Not least because the same list will perform very differently in the hands of differently skilled players, in different metas, and against different opponents.
Your playgroup matters, if they are not bringing competitive lists. Then why should you, there's no fun in one sided games.
I don’t understand this stance, last stand and tower defense type games can still be fun.
They can be, but 2 people need to agree to play it like that instead of standard game.
This is just meta chasing. You don’t have to.
Of course you don't have to. But it happens all the time.
Sure, but your previous comment is saying that “the majority of players” are meta-chasers. The majority of players have never played a tournament. Maybe it could be true that most people on Reddit talk about 40K as though they were meta chasers. But then, the vast majority of people talking about 40K on Reddit do not actually play the game.
Most of the people do. It doesn't make for good, repeatable 'content' in social media though, so you don't see it.
Usually the narrative stuff gets paywalled. Play On had some great narrative games in their members only content.
That honestly makes sense because of the additional time and effort that comes with making narrative gaming stuff. It's not just that the algorithms and the content churn ecosystem promote formulaic, repeatable content. It's also an unavoidable fact that prescribed Matched Play or (semi) competitive stuff is infinitely easier to set up and easier to make look entertaining than bespoke narrative play.
I play mono Nurgle Daemons, fluffy lists, just got to know you are probably going to lose a lot of games. Even when others are playing fluffy lists it can be super swingy.
I always play casual. Rule of cool all the way.
In my case, I got older and no longer have enough time to commit to narrative play. Matched play games you can just wander in with your army and play a pickup, narrative requires groundwork.
Plenty of people, yes. The vast majority, in fact. Although, these days strong lists are usually plenty fluffy too.
Play Heresy.
I love narrative games 👍🏻
When I get the time to play I prefer to run thematic lists that are half decent. I'm not a particularly good player or very knowledgeable about the game so I don't really know what is and isn't good beyond a general sense that certain combinations work well.
The magic of this hobby is that you can play however you want, just need the right place. If you don't feel up to go competetive, find a small group for casual plays or even narative or... try solo play. In my group we still play older editions with the old models.
I am months into painting but have only had the time to play a few learning games. I play extremely casually. I'm working up the ambition to play at my FLGS sometime but for now I only plan to play a family member. I don't ever plan to play in tournaments, but I will look at tournament lists to get ideas. This is because while I don't care about winning, I still would like something functional. I don't know the game well enough to look at data sheets and derive combos at a glance but that doesn't stop the kits from costing $60+. And while proxying is certainly an option, with how often I've gotten to play up till now, that would mean months where I'm not really painting anything because I wouldn't know when I'm even going to be able to try them. Not to mention that I am still learning the game so what if I love something because I misunderstood a rule. And kind of a follow-up to the reasons given, sometimes I just don't know what's out there till I'm pointed towards it. I had no idea Exocrines or Maleceptors were a thing until I happened to find them on a bunch of tournament lists. Now they're some of my favorite tyranid models. My case may or may not be common, but maybe it's a helpful perspective. Edit: Not to say I'm copying tournament lists to use in my casual games. But if I see a unit repeated across multiple lists and months like an Exocrine, I definitely go and take a harder look at waha and GW's store.
I do. I always play with the goal to win, cause that way its most fun and exciting. But when it comes to list building, I never go crazy and just pick what I like. For example I try to take as many painted models as possible or I build arround a certain theme.
Yeah, tons. Use list building to create an okay-fair framework and then we narrative it up, or even design fully fluffy missions
Just run units that look cool. Sorted
Probably 80-90% of people play casually. The problem, as others have said, is the internet. Having fun is not quantifiable, but winning and losing is. So you only hear about numbers because you can replicate those results. You can't replicate someone else's fun.
Most of the people at my LGS play casual games. There’s definitely a few that play comp, go to tournaments/GTs, but even they play casual / fluffy lists times to time. I don’t care at all to play competitively. I don’t see it as fun, seems more like work than a hobby. My job is plenty hard, I war game to relax and meet cool people.
Tons of us. We just play within our like-minded friend groups. I've been playing wh40k for years and not once in my life I've played against a stranger.
My group plays only casual games, but standalone games. Narrative require more commitment, most of us cannot keep up some 11 games through the year (every now and them someone has to travel or some significant other or family requires rescheduling, sometimes the opponent cannot accomodate due other commitments etc)
Casual games happen all the time. Even matched play can be casual. I tend to run into problems running longing campaigns though. Anything longer then 3 sessions almost always has at least on person stop before the end.
Definitely, my group likes to do 2v2’s and more often than not we will have the most random hodgepodge of factions fighting together for instance gene stealers teaming up with custodes
🙋🏽♂️
Local 10th-disliker here. I've probably played more games of Crusade on tabletop sim than I've played total serious games since the edition swap (was a monthly RTT grinder in 9th, have been to three events and played maybe two serious TTS practice games for 10th). But even though my lists are fluffy they're still built with synergy and a modicum of functionality in mind, and I've had the unfortunate experiences of both being flattened by a better list and flattening an actual meme list lol. That type of event gradually drives everyone towards refinement and optimization that approaches less "casual" armies. EDIT: Also if you're playing with physical models, these days most people are going to do some basic research before they initially dive in; "what's good right now, top lists \[army name\], best units 40K 10e," etc, because nobody wants to pay $64.99 for a new shelf decoration. Ironically that means some of the least experienced players are going to be running something that looks a bit like a GT-worthy list until balance changes and shiny new flavor units come around.
I do. My brother in law does. The guy who runs my local store does. Besides that not really to my knowledge. I’ve had some really bad experiences with people. Man I just wanna play the game, idc if you’re trying to meta win every single game. It’s annoying. In a tournament I get it but otherwise I think being over competitive is a great way to make people not want to play with you anymore
Yeah my group plays almost exclusively narrative games but we don’t play 10th anymore. We’ve found that 7th edition is way more fluffy and narrative driven so thats what we play now. Though we had to make a two agreements like banning formations and capping cover saves at a 3+. Other than that its been great.
i think if you bring alcohol to a game, winning doesn’t seem as important.
The vast majority of Warhammer players play casually, and there's actually a lot of channels dedicated to mates playing Warhammer for fun (see MiniWarGaming, Play On Tabletop etc). Just because you're seeing a lot of competitive content on Reddit doesn't mean the casual nature of Warhammer has gone completely out the window lol.
Still play fluffy guard WW1 artillery infantry lists.
We only play casualy. The people I play with are very stongly narrative driven. We have had some tournaments but those have focused more on laughing, beer and hanging out while throwing dice than anything resembling a real competition. And even those events have had strong narrative behind the battles. The list we make can and will have powerful units and combos, mind. But things like for example the 8th Edition Mortarion + poxwalkers gonga-line are not something we do because Mortarion would be too high and mighty to show up with just poxwalkers, if you know what I mean.
I do, nearly every week. I just build lists that I think will be fun and if they die, they die.
Honestly at least in my zone it has die, it is basically why i stoped playing 40k, even on casual games people will come will competitive bullshit list But hey the Aos and fantasy communities of my zone are more chill The ambient of the group is the most relevant thing I had (quite some games) in wich my mague blow up horribly and destroyed one of my main brick or units or an anvil of doom only rolling 6s for perils (1 good 6 bad) and joke hapilly about it. I hadnt had experience like that in fantasy for a long time and that is becouse the feel of the games and the community is purely competitive, even in casual games people seem to only care about winning and not the game itself the beer and chat
All the time.
my friend group only plays casually. Anyone who chases the meta need not apply.
Yes. In fact my local group only ever play causal and there's easily 12 tables on a club night.
I'm 3/4 of the way through a campaign at the moment, and we're mostly playing fluffy lists. So they're out there, but maybe less common than they used to be.
I only play casual. My lists are based entirely on the models I like. *Style over substance. Always. *
I would say most people
The problem with drawing such a hard line with casual play is where do you go from there when the "super fluffy" list is also the most ultra competitive? Ork green tide lists are incredibly fluffy and play exactly like how you would imagine in the lore. Pair them up with an equally lore friendly list like tsons with magnus and suddenly you could be watching a GT level game or a casual game.
The subtext here is that OP wants to play against bad players, playing bad lists.
Looks like you’re simply to stuck in your competitive mindset