How do you make an army? Is it a WAAC army or an army you like?

I hear people say some of the choices I make for my necron army aren't good because "That unit iz t3h suxx0r5!" Well, Maybe I just like that unit, or I feel that another unit isn't fitting with the army background I created.

Plus as I see it,. one new rules change can nerf a WAAC army at GWs whim, but the army I like will always be the army I like.

I generally try to balance things and pick something that I like, has a strong theme, and is at least somewhat competitive. I'm currently working on an Imperial Guard army, with 100 guardsmen, 5 leman russ, and a Shadowsword. I really like tanks, and thematically it works as a guard army (a company of tanks and a company of infantry). I think it will be at least somewhat competitive. Is it the most WAAC army out there? No, I'm sure there are armies that will have their way with it. But it's not a pushover army either.

Back in 5th edition I had a similar army, Codex Marines. I don't recall exactly what was in it, but the theme was mechanized, and I took a good balance of MSU things like las/plas razorbacks, and assault terminators in a land raider. Wasn't super overpowered, but thematically it worked as an entirely mechanized force and I liked how it looked.

Honestly? I Try for a mix. I have some units I like and I try to at least not piss all over the background material like a full-blown WAAC list (the kind that doesn't give a damn about the background or feel of the army), but since I want to win so I don't say screw this and look elsewhere, I give at least some eye to effectiveness.

I play Eldar. According to Teh Interwebz, they're the same thing.

WAAC is tied to FOTM in the current paradigm, so I kind of feel it's tied to an available time and money mechanism.

WAAC IS the army I like. Or at least armies that function. That way i can avoid the whole 'wahhh! How did my randon assortment of models not beat an army with some thought put into it?!' Problem that a lot of people seem to have.

Bharring wrote:
I play Eldar. According to Teh Interwebz, they're the same thing.

I play Marines. According to the internet all my lists are "play what I like" lists because Marines are a garbage fire and there isn't a WAAC list in the whole codex.

People that tend to use WAAC as a pejorative are the same kind of people who get mad when their all basic tactical marine army loses to a tank they can't figure out why they couldn't make "do the explody thing".

Play the game however you'd like. You're not a bad person for enjoying playing a tactical game, and you're not worse for ware in the hobby for playing with random stuff and have a good time.

Exist within the hobby and respect one another.

I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

As competitive as I can with the models I prefer and are painted, usually. But what I collect and paint is usually mono-dex, no FW. But I also paint the units I think will work first.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
How do you make an army? Is it a WAAC army or an army you like?

I hear people say some of the choices I make for my necron army aren't good because "That unit iz t3h suxx0r5!" Well, Maybe I just like that unit, or I feel that another unit isn't fitting with the army background I created.

Plus as I see it,. one new rules change can nerf a WAAC army at GWs whim, but the army I like will always be the army I like.

It's not mutually exclusive.

I like my armies; and they're fairly strong. Efforts have definitely been made to give me strong odds of winning against most opponents I'm likely to face.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list. But I also don't go looking for games against those kinds of people, and I avoid tournaments. People can play as they like.

That being said, the game needs to be built and refined around WAAC players, because they are the ones who will invariably find all the loop holes and abusive problem areas.

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

*time includes opponent’s movement of models*

Either select a theme (say, Eldar Aspects) or just start with units I like the models/conversions of.
Generally, non-troops/non-transports are 0-1 unless strictly necessary (like, say, 3 tempestus officers in some stormie list).
Actual models depend on the army. Eldar are built as they are.
Guard is as-is pus some conversion.
Chaos or Orks (the latter for a friend) are heavily converted.
No WAAC all, but still I want a tight ruleset and usable units. Time is precious, both for me and my opponent.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list. But I also don't go looking for games against those kinds of people, and I avoid tournaments. People can play as they like.

That being said, the game needs to be built and refined around WAAC players, because they are the ones who will invariably find all the loop holes and abusive problem areas.

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

I pretty much have to build fairly WAAC if I want to have a snowball's chance in hell of competing in my cutthroat local meta. I can tone it down as required for casual games with the non-tourney players, but if I want to not embarass myself in our local tournaments I have to come up with some nasty stuff. I still don't do as well as I'd like to, but that's because I need to tighten up my game.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list. But I also don't go looking for games against those kinds of people, and I avoid tournaments. People can play as they like.

That being said, the game needs to be built and refined around WAAC players, because they are the ones who will invariably find all the loop holes and abusive problem areas.

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

Shout it again to the people in the back.

People generally conflate "Warhammer as a competition" and "Win at all costs" as being the same thing.

If the event has a buy-in, I will bring the most ruthless list I can compile which has Sisters as the primary.

If it's a casual event, I ease up on the throttle.

Some people assume win at all costs means a willingness to cheat. Whereas turning up to a fun local tourney with an optimised Imperial/Eldar Soup is just taking things "too seriously".

I am probably in the bad corner because I like mathhammer. I like crunching numbers through excel spreadsheets to try and identify "good" and "bad" units. I also like to look for odd synergies/combos that might be overlooked.

With that said I play with a fair number of people who don't play the game as seriously as that. If I turn up with an optimised list played close to correctly, and they turn up with a pile of garbage played wrong, the result isn't a very fun game. So I am trying to focus more on having an army that looks great on the table rather than necesarilly being the most optimised units. Its something of a challenge though.

I don't build an army, if I'm honest. I like Eldar. I have since I started playing in 2nd edition. I more or less collect and paint all the units in the codex that I enjoy or can find reasonably priced. I never buy according to a list. I may adjust an occasional weapon (RIP scatter lasers on war walkers), or add a model or two to a squad on occasion - but I just collect "the army", not "an army". My purchases are never in line with what I want to build in a list. It's just "that's cool, I'll try it".

The result is I have 6,000+ points of both of my primary armies. I try to take different styled lists almost every time I play - often tailoring the list to the story in our narrative campaign. I dislike mathhammer immensely but that stems from being a military history fan, and a historical wargamer alongside things like 40K.

I've had very serious and conflict-intensive jobs. Wargaming is a hobby. It's about rolling dice and having fun with my buddies. Turning that into a competitive environment is pointless to me.

Depends where im playing and who im playing, as it should

 niv-mizzet wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

*time includes opponent’s movement of models*

I stand by my hyperbole.

Whatever the minis game I'm playing, within the confines of the rules I build my armies using the units/models I like 1st. Everything else is secondary.

I generally pick a playstyle, theme, or strategy i want to go for and build my lists and collection around fitting that desired outcome. I might be more on the "play to win" side of things when optimizing the list but I still stick to my original goal.

Example being my favorite Ork list in 7th. Goal was to use a Blitz Brigade and Flyers to have only an AV14 wall turn 1 and have turn 2 when everything is in charge range plus most of the flyers should be on the board providing fire support for the ground forces. End result is still the original goal of 5 Battlewagons and 3 Dakkajets but its loaded with Tankbustas, Boyz, Meganobz, MA Warboss, (all fairly optimal options for 7th) with the only non optimal pick being Flash Gitz because I love my gitz and they synergize really well with Blitz Brigade.

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

No, you're just playing a real 40k game with real armies.

I tend to take what I fancy models wise, without putting too much thought into overall efficiency.

Part of the fun for me is finding out how to make it work for myself. I'm stubborn like that!

Sometimes I end up with a killer army by accident. Other times I really need to sing for my supper, or think about swapping out certain units which just aren't working out.

Either way, so long as my opponent has an enjoyable game, regardless of outcome, I reckon I've got a given army about right.

I'm currently trying to fill out a Dark Angels Brigade starting with the troops choices: 3 five man scout squads (1 with sniper rifles) and 3 ten man tacticals (none of that combat squad nonsense) led by a librarian & a lieutenant. My next additions will be Rhinos, devastators and assault squads. So I guess I fall in the WAAC category.

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

What part of my paragraph insulted you? The part where I said that I personally don’t like playing against WAAC players? Or the part where I said people can play as they like, but I don’t want to play that way?

And I know they aren’t the same thing, but WAAC players also have optimized lists.

Maybe you’ve been accused of being a WAAC player and now have a complex about it?

Well the insulting part probably comes from the fact that some people read WAAC like some other people read nationalist.

I don't think it is possible to build anything close to a WAAC army with my faction. I do try to do something with it, and I sure don't like the way it plays right now. When I was starting people told me the army is full of elite psykers with good melee and shoting weapons. What they did not tell me is that this was only in the army fluff not in the game play the army actually has.

To a degree unless someone is playing crazy stuff like open or narrative, I can't imagine someone building or trying to build a functioning army, as long the goal is to play the game of course. I have no problem with someone making an army that looks good, because they like to paint and don't care if the army is even legal.

I have a rule.

That rule is "never buy a model just to get the rules."

You HAVE to like it for some other reason for it to be a worthwhile investment farther on down the line, because your investment will most likely be useless in 6 months otherwise.

You can buy a model because you like the way it looks and the rules are great and the concept of a super-buff hero flying around on his jump pack taking on giant enemy monster is cool - that's great! But if you bought into centurions because they were the best thing ever last edition, you have a fairly fugly paperweight collection right about now.

Isn't that right, guy with three wraithknights and 50 windriders with scatter lasers?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

What part of my paragraph insulted you? The part where I said that I personally don’t like playing against WAAC players? Or the part where I said people can play as they like, but I don’t want to play that way?

And I know they aren’t the same thing, but WAAC players also have optimized lists.

Maybe you’ve been accused of being a WAAC player and now have a complex about it?

You seemed to be inferring that all players with optimized lists are WAAC players, and that tournament-goers are also among them. WAAC means “win at all costs” and includes lying, cheating, and other unsportsmanlike behavior, which is extremely rare at tournaments, and doesn’t stick around long when it is seen. (In fact, good sportsmanship is very common at tournaments.)

You should think about replacing the term with “competitive” instead of generalizing and inferring that everyone who wants to play a serious game is a jerk that will do anything to win. If you did already know that, you certainly did not make it clear in your post.

Also I’ll ignore the thinly veiled insult.

WAAC isn't a list.

WAAC isn't an interest in getting a good win ratio.

WAAC isn't a desire to place well in organised play.

WAAC is the how of those things. And it's not something all those sharing any or all of those things are.

Someone fielding a powerful army isn't necessarily WAAC.

Someone fielding an average army, then deliberately slow playing? Probably WAAC.

Someone asking to check a rule in your Codex, probably isn't WAAC.

Someone asking to see every rule in your Codex as they come up? Quite possibly WAAC.

To me a WAAC player is anyone who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules.

Once you start cheating to win then you aren’t even playing the game anymore.

You can be a competitive player and still have a good game with your opponent.

So a WAAC player is one who tries to show up with the best force they can, play a clean game, works to know the rules, and helps me when I am unclear on the rules?

And that is the guy you don't want to splay?

I play to win if I can unless me and my game partners have decided on a themed or different lists.

However, I am probably not the best person at min-maxing so I end up just bringing whatever has worked for me, and often I play sub-par faction traits as I collect certain sub-factions that I'd rather stick to(like Saim-hann when playing Craftworlds).

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

What part of my paragraph insulted you? The part where I said that I personally don’t like playing against WAAC players? Or the part where I said people can play as they like, but I don’t want to play that way?

And I know they aren’t the same thing, but WAAC players also have optimized lists.

Maybe you’ve been accused of being a WAAC player and now have a complex about it?

maybe read my sig and get your terminology straight

Step 1: Build an army.

Step 2: Play a game.

Step 3: Was it a blowout?
You destroyed? Swap the MVP or runner up out for something (anything) else.

You got destroyed? Swap out something that disappointed you for something that'll do more for your list.

Not a blowout? Good, you had a good game.

Step 4: Play a few more games.
Are you winning more than 75%? Swap the MVP or runner up out for something (anything) else.

Are you losing more than 75%? Swap out something that disappointed you for something that'll do more for your list.

Step 5: Go to step 4.

Step 6: You fail at directions. This step is unreachable.

This won't provide a tournament-winning list, but it'll fit you into your meta and let you toy around with different units.

More generally, the idea should either be:
a) Competitive: You're trying to be the best you can be in the competitive sense. You're aiming for a 100% win rate (you won't get it, but it's the goal). There's nothing WAAC about list construction; the stronger, the better.

b) Casual: You want to fit into the local meta. If you're winning too much, tone down. If you're losing too much, tone up. Aim for a 60% win rate, and everyone's happy.

Unfortunately, people aren't entirely (a) or (b). Most people are somewhere in between. And wherever you are, if it's not A or B, people who beat you are WAAC players with a netlist, and people who you beat are CAAC losers who don't care.

If a WAAC player is a cheater, then he’s a cheater. Why use any other word for it. Get your terminology straight. There’s a difference.

A WAAC player slow plays/fast plays. Insults you while you’re playing. Interprets rules to their own benefit and to the detriment of yours. Builds skewed army lists and I list tailors so that the opponent won’t have a fun time playing. He isn’t looking for a competitive game, he’s looking for complete domination of the opponent.

 Blackie wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

No, you're just playing a real 40k game with real armies.

Compared to playing a game of 40k with fake armies?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If a WAAC player is a cheater, then he’s a cheater. Why use any other word for it. Get your terminology straight. There’s a difference.

A WAAC player slow plays/fast plays. Insults you while you’re playing. Interprets rules to their own benefit and to the detriment of yours. Builds skewed army lists and I list tailors so that the opponent won’t have a fun time playing. He isn’t looking for a competitive game, he’s looking for complete domination of the opponent.

Thats all great but you were using WAAC and optimized list interchangeably, and that is not what the words mean. Get your terminology straight. That's all

I play the units I like, I enjoy the units that work. If they happen to coincide, so much the better.

I spend a crapton of time painting, listening to audio books, reading 40k books, browsing lore discussion at multiple places, browsing paintwork and asking paint questions multiple places, converting, playing 40k video games, narrative 40k events and RP, playing silly units or gimmick lists, etc.

But I also play to do well. Gimmick or not I'm going to construct the list well. Often I'm just going to build the best list I can. I find it hilarious when the neckbeard parade tries to say it makes me less a part of the hobby or some gak. Like okay fine mate, if it makes you happy. I've never seen an instance of it that wasn't just salt directly fueled from losing anyway TBH.

I buy and build what I like. The power of units and armies will continuously change but typically not your love of a look/lore for a unit. Its why I've never been tempted to toss my stuff on eBay for next to nothing.

Fist of all, WAAC is "win at all costs" which infers rules are only followed if you get caught.

Anyway "building the army you like" could very well be based on a "competitive" or "advantageous" selection with the rules firmly in mind.

I find when models are put together and painted to a reasonable standard all this discussion is pointless: they would not have put in the effort if they did not like them.

We have all seen the roughly put together (if at all) and bare minimum painted (if at all) armies as per the "flavor of the month".
Mind-you some people are ONLY interested in the game aspect and have zero interest in the models themselves.

I play Black Templar Space Marines.
If anyone could claim playing with a handicap, I could.
I have a Grey Knight army as well if anyone is asking...

I like most everything in 40k so I feel advantageous models ARE a consideration to pick up and paint for use.
I have Imperial Knights as well as AM/IG which I have fielded in the most advantageous way I could to show I can play that almost auto-win card at any time.

I like to show every army has a good chance if you are careful in selection and synergies.
Sometimes "soup" feels right both by rules and the "fluff" if that is any consideration.

I had a bit of a dislike for the Primarus Marines to be in my BT's, so I have found them to look and perform exceptionally well in Deathwatch, so that is where they are going.

It is not really an either/or it is a blend of look/fluff/value for points/army focus/tactics/strategy.
It is all a consideration for the enjoyment of the game.

Despite all claims to the contrary, you want to at least win on occasion.
To lose every single game is a disservice to you and your opponents.

I find most people enjoy close games with the odd total win. Most people are happier in an environment where they've a good chance of winning and not a guarantee of losing each time.

People who lose every single game are more likely to try other games or leave the wargame scene entirely; or only resort to painting. Simply put losing every time is demoralizing even if winning isn't your primary objective. If every loss is also a wipeout then the winner also loses fun because they are just steamrolling*


A skilled player VS an unskilled is the worst matchup ever for both people. It can be fun the first few times, but quickly becomes a drag for both. The skilled gets no challenge whilst the unskilled is being challenged too much.


This thread is also making the mistake of inferring that skilled VS unskilled is the same as win at all costs VS fluffy list building - which is incorrect.
You can build a very fluffy list that is well build and wins games through good play. Similarly a bad player with the statistically best list there is can still lose every game (or near enough).

If you want a fast show of this try Magic the Gathering and put a really good deck in the hands of a newbie and a really bad deck in the hands of a pro. Both will struggle as the pro won't have the tools nad the newbie won't know how to use the deck to make it work (accepting that sometimes the newbie will win because some decks are very simplistic).



I also second the views that WAAC is a term with a strong negative association and is nothing to do about skill of list or play; but refers to an attitude of play. You can be a WAAC and have a terrible list and be a terrible player. A WAAC also doesn't have to win every game, they can lose a lot even though they are likely cheating along the way (in fact a person with a WAAC mentality who loses a lot is more likely to either army jump a lot or cheat because they will consider that the opponent has unfair advantage)


*in computer games a lot of people stop matches in games like Total War when they are at a point where they can beat any other faction. Ergo at the stage where all they have to do is go through the motions to win the game rather than have any challenge.

WAAC is a meaningless term. No one agrees on what it means. Its WIn at all cost, even if cheating! its win at all cost following all the detailed and intricate rules! its Win at all cost and only takes good units! Its win at all cost and its a fluffy list that is played exceptionally well!

Its crap. People who use it are trolls trying to stir up emotions.

I've never built a spam WAAC army, but I've never built a truly kneecapped army. I HAVE run armies that are tricky to run, though. Somewhere in the middle of the two extremes the OP lists is where I build my lists for every game I play.

I play Slaanesh Daemons and Renegades and Heretics, so...

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
To me a WAAC player is anyone who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules.

Once you start cheating to win then you aren’t even playing the game anymore.

You can be a competitive player and still have a good game with your opponent.

So I can just start using the old southern term for African Americans because I decided “to me, lt doesn’t have negative connotation,” right? Yeah that sounds like a way to get shot.

Win at all costs does carry negative meaning, whether you want it to or not, and using the term broadly is either severe ignorance or an attempt to troll. If you mean competitive, say that.

Also, not only can competitive players have good games with opponents, that’s the norm. I’ve seen far more negative behavior from people claiming tournaments are bad than I ever have from tournaments.

 Elbows wrote:
I don't build an army, if I'm honest. I like Eldar. I have since I started playing in 2nd edition. I more or less collect and paint all the units in the codex that I enjoy or can find reasonably priced. I never buy according to a list. I may adjust an occasional weapon (RIP scatter lasers on war walkers), or add a model or two to a squad on occasion - but I just collect "the army", not "an army". My purchases are never in line with what I want to build in a list. It's just "that's cool, I'll try it".

The result is I have 6,000+ points of both of my primary armies. I try to take different styled lists almost every time I play - often tailoring the list to the story in our narrative campaign. I dislike mathhammer immensely but that stems from being a military history fan, and a historical wargamer alongside things like 40K.

I've had very serious and conflict-intensive jobs. Wargaming is a hobby. It's about rolling dice and having fun with my buddies. Turning that into a competitive environment is pointless to me.

Exalted

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
How do you make an army? Is it a WAAC army or an army you like?

I hear people say some of the choices I make for my necron army aren't good because "That unit iz t3h suxx0r5!" Well, Maybe I just like that unit, or I feel that another unit isn't fitting with the army background I created.

Plus as I see it,. one new rules change can nerf a WAAC army at GWs whim, but the army I like will always be the army I like.

I built WAAC when I entered the hobby, after winning several tournaments in my local area I went for whatever I felt like and despite not having the same level of success (which was completely foreseeable) I had more fun. Now I'm building whatever I find cool

the_scotsman wrote:
I have a rule.

That rule is "never buy a model just to get the rules."

You HAVE to like it for some other reason for it to be a worthwhile investment farther on down the line, because your investment will most likely be useless in 6 months otherwise.

You can buy a model because you like the way it looks and the rules are great and the concept of a super-buff hero flying around on his jump pack taking on giant enemy monster is cool - that's great! But if you bought into centurions because they were the best thing ever last edition, you have a fairly fugly paperweight collection right about now.

Isn't that right, guy with three wraithknights and 50 windriders with scatter lasers?

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree on Centurions being ugly.

Also?

Planning is for your terrain collection. Not your army (YMMV)

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list.

So what do you do when someone brings a beautiful fluffy army that's also highly optimized?

My lists have to have stories. All units and characters are named and have a background and a role to play in he story the game is telling. Effectiveness of the units is not a consideration. It’s 5e same when I paint and model the units. It all adds to the story. Winning or losing doesn’t matter as much as he story.

I build the best army I can within a theme I like. I like tanks, so I'll design a mechanized guard army. It will be thematic and fluffy (mechanized infantry supported by armour), but I'll generally only take the superior LR chassis and ensure my vehicles have optimal wargear. Same goes for the infantry, with a few exceptions.

Basically, I pick a theme, pick appropriate units for the theme, and equip with them with optimal wargear. My armies therefore are never WAAC/A grade tournament tier, but they're competitive enough to not fold over against such armies, and likewise won't curb stomp weaker armies because I don't fish for broken combinations or build around overpowered units generally.

If we really want to get philosophical about terminology, calling someone WAAC is just a form of "Othering". It is a word we use to disparage people we believe are "bad". It is therefore no wonder discussions with that word get heated, especially in such a binary discussion as WAAC or Build the army you like.

In fact, same is done by talking about casuals although casual can be negative/benign depending on what group you belong to unlike WAAC which has a universally bad connotation.

In the end all that matters is to enjoy a rich and lively hobby. If you don't like playing someone then don't. If you want to play a certain way then try to find like-minded souls to join you. If you are a bit of a go-with-the-flow person like myself then just enjoy whatever.

I build and paint far too slowly to chase rules, even if I were inclined to.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
To me a WAAC player is anyone who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules.

Once you start cheating to win then you aren’t even playing the game anymore.

You can be a competitive player and still have a good game with your opponent.

So I can just start using the old southern term for African Americans because I decided “to me, lt doesn’t have negative connotation,” right? Yeah that sounds like a way to get shot.

Win at all costs does carry negative meaning, whether you want it to or not, and using the term broadly is either severe ignorance or an attempt to troll. If you mean competitive, say that.

Also, not only can competitive players have good games with opponents, that’s the norm. I’ve seen far more negative behavior from people claiming tournaments are bad than I ever have from tournaments.

I wonder if this counts as a Reducto Ad Hitlerium or not.

You using this internet abbreviation for a term that has debated meaning only within the confines of the internet community surrounding a game of plastic toy soldiers is JUST LIKE using possibly the most widely acknowledged racial slur in recent human history!

You would think that such casual racism would have merited a response from the mods, but you'd apparently be wrong.

Apparently it's ok to make the case that attempted murder, at least, is the natural result of insulting a POC, so long as you say it politely.

the_scotsman wrote:


I wonder if this counts as a Reducto Ad Hitlerium or not.

You using this internet abbreviation for a term that has debated meaning only within the confines of the internet community surrounding a game of plastic toy soldiers is JUST LIKE using possibly the most widely acknowledged racial slur in recent human history!

From what I understand how my dad explained this to me, at some point in time words stoped having a single generaly agreed uppon meaning, after that there was some time after that when a word meaning was linked to how the person using it understood it. So lets say someone from eastern europe calling a native american is not part of his inbreed racism, but how the word is used in his own language. Right now words don't mean what the speaker wants them to mean, but how various interpreters feel about it.
This way you get WAAC being an insult in some places, while in Poland WAAC is a term used used for good players and it a positive one. Also because of how interaction work online, people are over sensitive about everything, so someone thinking that being called a WAAC is being equal to being called a racist, can easily happen.

I basically play/build what I like. While I do try to pick the most effective unit for the given task, it's not always the best for my opponents list.

When I'm figuring out a list, I start with a mental image of what I want it to look like on the tabletop.

I actively try to avoid WAAC players due to a completely non-enjoyable gaming experience. I am perfectly capable of playing all of the nasty stuff to counteract them but I have better things to do.

Racerguy180 wrote:

I am perfectly capable of playing all of the nasty stuff to counteract them but I have better things to do.

Yep. Some people think that being able to copy a list from the net is a measure of skill.

Personally this is mainly a modelling hobby to me, so I get units that I like to build and paint, and then attempt to form some semi-sensible army out of them. Of course when the models hit the table, I play to win (and seem to do pretty decently, if I say so myself) but I really don't want to win in the listbuilding phase.This game is usually more fun when both players have somewhat 'suboptimal' lists. Insane alpha strike doesn't become such an determining factor, and you actually need to try to manoeuvre and think about the objectives.

I almost fell for the bait, but wow guys, classy stuff with your reaction to WAAC.

Personally, I have a display case that I want to have certain things in, and from there I pick what I buy/paint first on what fits into a list I can play. Some extent of power and/or different roles goes into it because I cannot lie and say I don't see a significant bumping up of Goliaths in my build schedule if the broodsurge rules are any good. It's a list I've wanted to build, but haven't really been able to justify because of the in game mechanics.

 Crimson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

I am perfectly capable of playing all of the nasty stuff to counteract them but I have better things to do.

Yep. Some people think that being able to copy a list from the net is a measure of skill.

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

My collection and lists are 100% based on lore, not competitive rankings of units.

I prefer to play with a theme. I can and will favor the units that help me, but at the end of the day painting and communal story-telling are my favorite parts of this game and the main reason I continue to play. So my favorite units that I always bring are secondly my middling-in-effectiveness flash gitz (Though I think their pretty great in the new codex!) that make sense in my armies fluff, and firstly my kit-bashed commanders that I have named and given backgrounds over the years.

I like powerful armies. As in, tabletop powerful, not fluff powerful.

I don't like to crush someone so bad they don't have fun, since I won't have fun either.

My favorite games are the ones where it comes down to the wire, especially when the opponent is a good chap and fun to be with.

But I tend to think rules first-helps that 40k models look pretty baller, so I can add anything and not think "That performs great but looks ugly as sin."

Is that wrong?

I like terminators. All my lists have terminators in them. Make what you will with that.

How did my game thread get turned into this? :

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

I am perfectly capable of playing all of the nasty stuff to counteract them but I have better things to do.

Yep. Some people think that being able to copy a list from the net is a measure of skill.

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

Exactly. Looking at the winning lists doesn't mean you need to copy them, but typically you can see what's going on, formulate how to build your army, and maybe still keep any flavor. Hell, I'm STILL writing up several lists for my Counts-As Deathwatch.

Reemule wrote:WAAC is a meaningless term. No one agrees on what it means. Its WIn at all cost, even if cheating! its win at all cost following all the detailed and intricate rules! its Win at all cost and only takes good units! Its win at all cost and its a fluffy list that is played exceptionally well!

Its crap. People who use it are trolls trying to stir up emotions.

Eldarsif wrote:If we really want to get philosophical about terminology, calling someone WAAC is just a form of "Othering". It is a word we use to disparage people we believe are "bad". It is therefore no wonder discussions with that word get heated, especially in such a binary discussion as WAAC or Build the army you like.

In fact, same is done by talking about casuals although casual can be negative/benign depending on what group you belong to unlike WAAC which has a universally bad connotation.

In the end all that matters is to enjoy a rich and lively hobby. If you don't like playing someone then don't. If you want to play a certain way then try to find like-minded souls to join you. If you are a bit of a go-with-the-flow person like myself then just enjoy whatever.

I honestly feel that the term should be added to this forum's terminology black list.

Techpriestsupport wrote:How did my game thread get turned into this? :

Because as Reemule & Eldarsif point out, WAAC is a term that is heavily laced with negative connotations, and the fact that many people use WAAC interchangeably with "competitive" means that - rightly or wrongly - by using the term WAAC in your post, many people may have drawn the assertion that you were attacking competitive play altogether. I'm not saying that was your intention, but it's the nature of forums as a medium to be very easily misinterpreted.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

I am perfectly capable of playing all of the nasty stuff to counteract them but I have better things to do.

Yep. Some people think that being able to copy a list from the net is a measure of skill.

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

Exactly. Looking at the winning lists doesn't mean you need to copy them, but typically you can see what's going on, formulate how to build your army, and maybe still keep any flavor. Hell, I'm STILL writing up several lists for my Counts-As Deathwatch.

Yeah. I'd go as far as saying that needing to blindly copy other players lists to compete, or thinking that's what competitive play is, is the mark of a bad player.


That being said there is definitely a lot of people who just skate by poorly playing other people's good lists.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

I am perfectly capable of playing all of the nasty stuff to counteract them but I have better things to do.

Yep. Some people think that being able to copy a list from the net is a measure of skill.

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

Exactly. Looking at the winning lists doesn't mean you need to copy them, but typically you can see what's going on, formulate how to build your army, and maybe still keep any flavor. Hell, I'm STILL writing up several lists for my Counts-As Deathwatch.

Yeah. I'd go as far as saying that needing to blindly copy other players lists to compete, or thinking that's what competitive play is, is the mark of a bad player.


That being said there is definitely a lot of people who just skate by poorly playing other people's good lists.

It isn't bad habit to use the exact lists though to see how they play out now and then. That's assuming you have enough time to do that.

I tend to pick a few units I fancy fielding and then work the list around it to try and make a competitive army which works with itself.
my first 8E game was built around a kill tank and a meka dread. threw in battlewagons of boys and a big-trakk of tankbustas to try and make it a bit more oomphy, give the ablative wounds and ranged anti-heavy that the meka dread lacked, and a KFF for the kill bursta (bursta kannon is quite fun, if you reroll any 1's for the quantity of shots using CP!).

Throughout 7th I would be winning with experimental ork lists. It seemed to work to my advantage to throw the meta out of the window and bring a TAC list with a theme (sneak up on them, trukk rush, outflank 'em, outshoot 'em, all the tricks, etc...).
"all the tricks" is less viable now that there are basically no tricks - no bigbomms on koptas, no boarding planks, no proppa grabbing klaws... had one very fun game in which a wagon grabbed a dreadnaught, and then in the next turn a trukk rolled up, dropped a plank on it, the warboss trotted over and cracked the thing wide open. Good times...

have to say though, I'm less prone to experimenting with my other armies - chaos & marines. I tend towards a theme but used to keep them fairly competitive.

I think it's just a greenskin thing. My rebel grots (using guard codex) I experimented with all the time. I probably wouldn't have if they were just regular guard models!

 SHUPPET wrote:

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

Well, that is just so trivial. Identifying good units is not hard. Now, formulating a battleplan where the unit's perform at their optimal capacity takes a little more thought, but you need to do that with bad units too.

 Crimson wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

Well, that is just so trivial. Identifying good units is not hard. Now, formulating a battleplan where the unit's perform at their optimal capacity takes a little more thought, but you need to do that with bad units too.

The fact that you think having a battleplan isn't part of good list building is exactly what I'm talking about here. Gone are the days when a viable list was just spamming the strongest 1 or 2 units in your dex with a couple of troops for grabbing points.

 SHUPPET wrote:

The fact that you think having a battleplan isn't part of good list building is exactly what I'm talking about here.

Of course it is! But as I said, you need to do that with bad units too. Identifying good units is the trivial part that doesn't really take much skill.

 SHUPPET wrote:
[q
Yeah. I'd go as far as saying that needing to blindly copy other players lists to compete, or thinking that's what competitive play is, is the mark of a bad player.


That being said there is definitely a lot of people who just skate by poorly playing other people's good lists.

I dont, it seems to depend on the list. How much unskilled are you if you take reapers or s spears in your army, or if you take NDK GMs in your GK list? It doesn't require a genius to spot the good units in a book, specialy if the book has 2-3 good choices. The biggest problem with list building is probably with mid tier lists, and mostly because the gaps between good and bad lists in w40k are huge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

Well, that is just so trivial. Identifying good units is not hard. Now, formulating a battleplan where the unit's perform at their optimal capacity takes a little more thought, but you need to do that with bad units too.

The fact that you think having a battleplan isn't part of good list building is exactly what I'm talking about here. Gone are the days when a viable list was just spamming the strongest 1 or 2 units in your dex with a couple of troops for grabbing points.

wasnt the castellan+smash cpt+scouts+IG build exactly that? some chaff and objective holders, and troops you have to take, and the rest is pure best in slot from 2 codex books.

Karol wrote:

I dont, it seems to depend on the list. How much unskilled are you if you take reapers or s spears in your army, or if you take NDK GMs in your GK list? It doesn't require a genius to spot the good units in a book, specialy if the book has 2-3 good choices. The biggest problem with list building is probably with mid tier lists, and mostly because the gaps between good and bad lists in w40k are huge.

Good point. The list building takes much more effort when you don't have (either by circumstances or by choice) obvious god tier units at your disposal.

Karol wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

The measure of skill is not needing a netlist to know how to build the nastiest list you can.

List building is a part of being a good 40k player. This shouldn't be a controversial statement but apparently it is.

Well, that is just so trivial. Identifying good units is not hard. Now, formulating a battleplan where the unit's perform at their optimal capacity takes a little more thought, but you need to do that with bad units too.

The fact that you think having a battleplan isn't part of good list building is exactly what I'm talking about here. Gone are the days when a viable list was just spamming the strongest 1 or 2 units in your dex with a couple of troops for grabbing points.

wasnt the castellan+smash cpt+scouts+IG build exactly that? some chaff and objective holders, and troops you have to take, and the rest is pure best in slot from 2 codex books.

That's like 10+ different units right there. The Knight lists that dominated NOVA had on average, TWELVE units. That's a big difference to lists that were literally nothing other than Flyrants + Mawlocs, or Stormravens, or Riptides + Markers, etc.

And that's the most egregious example of braindead balance of this edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

The fact that you think having a battleplan isn't part of good list building is exactly what I'm talking about here.

Of course it is! But as I said, you need to do that with bad units too. Identifying good units is the trivial part that doesn't really take much skill.

You're right of course, I thought you were dismissing list building and putting everything on play skill, so I misunderstood you. Even the best players playing the best armies put a lot of thought into their build.

That's like 10+ different units right there. The Knight lists that dominated NOVA had on average, TWELVE units. That's a big difference to lists that were literally nothing other than Flyrants + Mawlocs, or Stormravens, or Riptides + Markers, etc.

Well then an inari list, or any eldar list that takes farseers. The whole eldar faction is pre build to fit in, they don't even have strage point left over other armies have.
Plus in the castellan list there weren't really 10 choices in it. you took the castellan, the 32 chaff everyone takes, and the cpts, you had to take the scouts, because they are better and cheaper then tacticals or intercesors. The list build itself the second the castellan rules were leaked.

I build all of my armies fluffy and full of units I like. It worked out for me when my Imperial Fists had piles of Razorbacks and MSU and my Tyranids having multiple units of Carnofexes. Its not ending well for my Raven Guard with lots of Drop pods or my IG with all veterans and Chimeras...

I build WAAC within the factions I like. I lucked out having chosen eldar as my first main faction and have had pretty decent luck with the rules updates for daemons as my second faction. I'm not above souping daemons with other Chaos to win my games as long as I still get to drop massive hordes of daemonic nightmares on the table. I do have a collection of non-WAAC "models I like" that I use to tone down my lists for less WAAC play. But at the moment WAAC play against opposing WAAC lists is a huge novelty for me and I find it the most engaging form of play, especially since I don't see it too often on an average day at the store.

By WAAC I mean "maximally optimized cheese" at the absolute limit of what the design space affords within a given faction, and not unsportman-like behavior.

I like small elite armies, which means I've been screwed pretty hard by 8e (my Corsairs are gone, my Ordo Reductor can't be played against 40k armies anymore, my Space Marines are pretty crap, my Custodians are Codex: Jetbikes...), so I have to try and build a WAAC list to even put an army on the table a lot of the time.

Oh jesus xxxxing Christ!!!

Someone compared the term WAAC to racism?!?! 'scuse me, I gotta go puke.



This is just ridiculous. Honestly can't there be a reasonable thread without sickening levels of hyperbole thrown in?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
...This is just ridiculous. Honestly can't there be a reasonable thread without sickening levels of hyperbole thrown in?

This is the Internet.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
...This is just ridiculous. Honestly can't there be a reasonable thread without sickening levels of hyperbole thrown in?

This is the Internet.

I know, I know. I just keep having this naive hope that someday i'll find a site where people are intelligent and reasonable. I was hoping people smart enough to like playing wargames like 40k would be a cut above the usual riffraff...

I don't think it has to do much with inteligance. You can be very inteligent and still want to wipe out what or who ever is the opposing camp. History has a ton examples of people or whole groups like that.

Hate or disgust about the "other" is not limited to people living in the hills. As much as I would like it to be so, because god damn, why are the hill people bad to live around no matter what continent they are on.

Look i'm not disgusted because peopel are others. I'm a little disgusted that someone somehow took the term WAAC and managed to like it to racism....

In a world where a dean of a university has to go public and say sorry for saying that all lives matter, nothing can suprise me anymore. In fact if someone says that they aren't really concerned in labels, but more with actually playing or painting the models, am awe struck.

No idea about other countries, but we get stuff like that daily. Everything is a problem, everthing can get you fired, talking in public save for maybe those with immunity, is a delayed death sentance. My dad always tells me to follow the old polish saying that a mute calf sucks milk from two mothers.

WAAC, or at least playing to win (a slight but important difference) all the time , just like everyone else, even those confused self hating CAAC sorts (as a 'moral' victory is a deluded kind of winning)

Note all, some or none of the above is true

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Look i'm not disgusted because peopel are others. I'm a little disgusted that someone somehow took the term WAAC and managed to like it to racism....

There are a number of terms people could use to describe other people. When you use loaded terms with a history of malicious intent, people will assume that malice is our intent as well. So it's an easy comparison to racism. At it's core, it's a label meant to hurt someone,

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Look i'm not disgusted because peopel are others. I'm a little disgusted that someone somehow took the term WAAC and managed to like it to racism....

There are a number of terms people could use to describe other people. When you use loaded terms with a history of malicious intent, people will assume that malice is our intent as well. So it's an easy comparison to racism. At it's core, it's a label meant to hurt someone,

And when you compare these terms you're trivializing one.

I've had my wife called a 'southern reference to black people', let me assure you that it's impact is nothing like caac or waac. It's malicious to act as if they are the same just because one personally offends you.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I like powerful armies. As in, tabletop powerful, not fluff powerful.

I don't like to crush someone so bad they don't have fun, since I won't have fun either.

My favorite games are the ones where it comes down to the wire, especially when the opponent is a good chap and fun to be with.

But I tend to think rules first-helps that 40k models look pretty baller, so I can add anything and not think "That performs great but looks ugly as sin."

Is that wrong?

Nah, most people like having good army (to a degree) and winning. But that's not what 'waac' is generally understood as, isn't it? It's rather the opposite of the above, not caring one bit about opponent and only delivering pleasure from as 'big' win as possible, identification of 1-2 best units and spamming them to exclusion of everything else, no matter how little sense it makes in the fluff, and not giving a damn about army looks, with grey hordes being common, and at best three mandatory tournament standard colors being used, thrown on as quickly as possible.

In fact, some of the best players I met didn't gave one damn about winning. They knew they can do that without trying, so what's the point? Better to have a good time, maybe by deliberately trying weird list where nothing is optimized or consisting of units that never see play, precisely to actually see and feel how these units work in game. If I played a new player, I'd also focus on giving them good time and helping them learn new stuff, not winning, and it still puzzles me why some people feel insulted by a mere suggestion that not crushing the newbie instead of trying to win 100:0 might be a good thing, with some especially bizarre cases even comparing it to real, actual slurs. Seriously?

Karol wrote:
In a world where a dean of a university has to go public and say sorry for saying that all lives matter, nothing can suprise me anymore. In fact if someone says that they aren't really concerned in labels, but more with actually playing or painting the models, am awe struck.

No idea about other countries, but we get stuff like that daily. Everything is a problem, everthing can get you fired, talking in public save for maybe those with immunity, is a delayed death sentance. My dad always tells me to follow the old polish saying that a mute calf sucks milk from two mothers.

Cute. Maybe I'd believe you if you didn't live in a country where a band of sieg-heiling neonazis can make big, public mock hanging of "racial enemies" and the minister of justice calls them "good boys!". Which is by the way the same country where collaborators of real, actual nazis from 40s are glorified for their war crimes, and fascists wearing racist emblems do battles with baseball bats, chains and mauls regularly after football matches only to be later courted by government as ""patriots"" while policemen who dare to investigate their real, actual crimes (by which I mean stuff that classifies as attempted murder, not the alt right fake news stated above) are being suspended.

Gee, yes, anything can get you fired. Unless you stole billions from rural bank system, or sent armed goons after tax investigator who revealed said theft, or send an assassin to kill said investigator, then that's OK, and you get to become high ranking official in Polish government. But all of this is minor stuff next to ""labels"", whatever they are, eh?

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
And when you compare these terms you're trivializing one.

I've had my wife called a 'southern reference to black people', let me assure you that it's impact is nothing like caac or waac. It's malicious to act as if they are the same just because one personally offends you.

I know, right? It always stuns me how certain types always scream for their 'right' to insult, belittle, and verbally assault others because "muh free speech" but if they get one millionth of that back they howl they were murdered or something and that both terms are 100% identical. Sigh...

I build how I like. And if WAACKERS wanna cry about that then good. Screw those morons

Irbis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I like powerful armies. As in, tabletop powerful, not fluff powerful.

I don't like to crush someone so bad they don't have fun, since I won't have fun either.

My favorite games are the ones where it comes down to the wire, especially when the opponent is a good chap and fun to be with.

But I tend to think rules first-helps that 40k models look pretty baller, so I can add anything and not think "That performs great but looks ugly as sin."

Is that wrong?

Nah, most people like having good army (to a degree) and winning. But that's not what 'waac' is generally understood as, isn't it? It's rather the opposite of the above, not caring one bit about opponent and only delivering pleasure from as 'big' win as possible, identification of 1-2 best units and spamming them to exclusion of everything else, no matter how little sense it makes in the fluff, and not giving a damn about army looks, with grey hordes being common, and at best three mandatory tournament standard colors being used, thrown on as quickly as possible.

In fact, some of the best players I met didn't gave one damn about winning. They knew they can do that without trying, so what's the point? Better to have a good time, maybe by deliberately trying weird list where nothing is optimized or consisting of units that never see play, precisely to actually see and feel how these units work in game. If I played a new player, I'd also focus on giving them good time and helping them learn new stuff, not winning, and it still puzzles me why some people feel insulted by a mere suggestion that not crushing the newbie instead of trying to win 100:0 might be a good thing, with some especially bizarre cases even comparing it to real, actual slurs. Seriously?

Karol wrote:
In a world where a dean of a university has to go public and say sorry for saying that all lives matter, nothing can suprise me anymore. In fact if someone says that they aren't really concerned in labels, but more with actually playing or painting the models, am awe struck.

No idea about other countries, but we get stuff like that daily. Everything is a problem, everthing can get you fired, talking in public save for maybe those with immunity, is a delayed death sentance. My dad always tells me to follow the old polish saying that a mute calf sucks milk from two mothers.

Cute. Maybe I'd believe you if you didn't live in a country where a band of sieg-heiling neonazis can make big, public mock hanging of "racial enemies" and the minister of justice calls them "good boys!". Which is by the way the same country where collaborators of real, actual nazis from 40s are glorified for their war crimes, and fascists wearing racist emblems do battles with baseball bats, chains and mauls regularly after football matches only to be later courted by government as ""patriots"" while policemen who dare to investigate their real, actual crimes (by which I mean stuff that classifies as attempted murder, not the alt right fake news stated above) are being suspended.

Gee, yes, anything can get you fired. Unless you stole billions from rural bank system, or sent armed goons after tax investigator who revealed said theft, or send an assassin to kill said investigator, then that's OK, and you get to become high ranking official in Polish government. But all of this is minor stuff next to ""labels"", whatever they are, eh?

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
And when you compare these terms you're trivializing one.

I've had my wife called a 'southern reference to black people', let me assure you that it's impact is nothing like caac or waac. It's malicious to act as if they are the same just because one personally offends you.

I know, right? It always stuns me how certain types always scream for their 'right' to insult, belittle, and verbally assault others because "muh free speech" but if they get one millionth of that back they howl they were murdered or something and that both terms are 100% identical. Sigh...

The issue is, it seems like a lot of people conflate "Wants a nice strong army" with WAAC.

Even a fluffy army can be quite potent on the table, though not as frequently as it should be. But there's no contradiction between "I like this" and "This is good". Or at least, there's no INHERENT contradiction to that.

ValentineGames wrote:I build how I like. And if WAACKERS wanna cry about that then good. Screw those morons

I think you're imagining persecution where there's none.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Look i'm not disgusted because peopel are others. I'm a little disgusted that someone somehow took the term WAAC and managed to like it to racism....

There are a number of terms people could use to describe other people. When you use loaded terms with a history of malicious intent, people will assume that malice is our intent as well. So it's an easy comparison to racism. At it's core, it's a label meant to hurt someone,

And when you compare these terms you're trivializing one.

I've had my wife called a 'southern reference to black people', let me assure you that it's impact is nothing like caac or waac. It's malicious to act as if they are the same just because one personally offends you.

Does the Holocaust trivialize a single murder? No it doesn't. One is simply many magnitudes worse than the other, but both are wrong and need justice. Dismissing lesser wrong doing that don't affect you is a path to the greater wrongs later on.

How many Racists would never be if people dealt with their behavior while they were still just donkey-caves?

 Crimson Devil wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Look i'm not disgusted because peopel are others. I'm a little disgusted that someone somehow took the term WAAC and managed to like it to racism....

There are a number of terms people could use to describe other people. When you use loaded terms with a history of malicious intent, people will assume that malice is our intent as well. So it's an easy comparison to racism. At it's core, it's a label meant to hurt someone,

And when you compare these terms you're trivializing one.

I've had my wife called a 'southern reference to black people', let me assure you that it's impact is nothing like caac or waac. It's malicious to act as if they are the same just because one personally offends you.

Does the Holocaust trivialize a single murder? No it doesn't. One is simply many magnitudes worse than the other, but both are wrong and need justice. Dismissing lesser wrong doing that don't affect you is a path to the greater wrongs later on.

How many Racists would never be if people dealt with their behavior while they were still just donkey-caves?

OMFG!!! Now the holocaust gets dragged into it?!?!?!? Christ I hope my toilet can handle all he vomit i'm about to firehouse into it....

We really need a vomiting ork emoticon for things like this.

The point completely eludes you doesn't it?

Go big or go home. WAAC! Unfortunately i have a weak army and so i go home and play other games.

I feel you're being intentionally obtuse here.

No one is implying "oh no mean internet slang you are equal to millions of dead Jews!!!!"

It's literally just as example of WORST POSSIBLE BAD versus SMALL BAD in an OBVIOUS hyperbole.

This website uses "waac" to demonize competitive players for one reason or another, it's a pejorative here.

The whole point is it's "othering". It's used to make someone out to be a bad person, and also circumvents language filters. You can't say a curse word for big poopies but you can imply someone's opinion doesn't matter because they're "waac".

No one is actually saying that's EQUIVALENT to racism, just that the use of WORDS to negatively imply things about a collective of people is inherently negative and the OBVIOUS EXTREME of racism is/was used to show a clear example of ways people do that every day, and that we clearly would not accept here.

BIG BAD IS BIG BAD AND NOT COMPARABLE

SMALL BAD IS BAD AS WELL, NOT SAME BAD, JUST DIFFERENT BAD

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Go big or go home. WAAC! Unfortunately i have a weak army and so i go home and play other games.

That gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for the levity.

I am of partial Jewish (Hebrew) descent. I don't find these comparisons offensive, or trivializing. Quite the opposite. They are referenced as an examples of the worst, and held up as a point of "you can recognize this massive, awful thing is bad, so surely that knowledge helps to illuminate why a similar thing on a smaller scale is also a bad way to act". Right or wrong, at the very least it's not trivializing anything.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I was hoping people smart enough to like playing wargames like 40k would be a cut above the usual riffraff...

Once upon a time that might have been true. But here in late 2018? HA!

Instead of explaining to me why bringing up racism or the holocaust in a thread about WAAC isn't literally comparing use of WAAC to them why not just not bring them up?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Instead of explaining to me why bringing up racism or the holocaust in a thread about WAAC isn't literally comparing use of WAAC to them why not just not bring them up?

Because people don't have to live their lives around people pearl clutching over nothing. Explaining to you why you're getting worked up over nothing seems like the practical response but if you don't care to hear it I guess you'll just have to let discussion continue.

Drawing parallels between racism and accusations of WAAC is logically valid. It is prudent to acknowledge the large difference in scale between the two, which has been done. If you are personally offended by the comparison, you do you. Remember that offence is taken, not given; I don’t have the right to tell you that you shouldn’t be offended, but you don’t have the authority to determine what is objectively offensive. If someone is deliberately trying to offend you to intimidate or insult you, that’s bullying. If you take offence to a discussion that isn’t deliberately bullying you, leave the discussion rather than trying to shut it down. It is genuinely depressing how the age of the internet has atrophied humanity’s ability to understand this.




I have a slightly different take on WAAC. Note that I don’t consider cheating to be WAAC since if you cheat you aren’t playing a game and trying to win. I don’t think we can just call people who build face-smashing lists to win ‘competitive players’ either. I’m very competitive in a tournament environment, I’ll try my damned best to crush you and enjoy the lamentations of your women(/men/non-binary spouses). But I won’t take an army I don’t love in order to win games. So competitive isn’t a viable adjective for the top-end tourney players/wannabes.

The big question seems to be ‘Just how much are you willing to sacrifice to win? Just what cost is acceptable?’

Money, time, effort? Sure, most people will happily accept those costs.

Playing with units or a game plan you don’t necessarily like, such as gunlines? Now we’re starting to separate people into archetypes.

Playing an army you have no great love of? We’re getting to the pointy end here.

Sacrificing theme and looking like a cohesive army to take the most competitive combo possible? Bingo. This is the big one. To a large part of the community, this is the final hurdle; the last demon you must slay to win. To many, this is the biggest sacrifice, the biggest cost you could possibly pay to chase the win.

But then, surely if you’re willing to pay the biggest cost, you’ve made a tacit decision to pay the smaller costs? That is, you want to Win, At All Costs? To someone for whom the theme and the look and the fluff of an army is critical to the enjoyment of the hobby, labelling someone who sacrifices all that to win as WAAC is entirely valid.

WAAC can have different definitions actually, basically this two ones:

- A person that cheats, slow plays, does continuing rules lawyering just to distract or upset the opponent in order to win the game.

- A person that brings overpowered lists in any contest, even casual ones, because he always wants to win the game, not to play a fair and balanced match, and he feels angry/upset if somehow he loses the game. These are tipycal individuals that seek to win, not to play and have this over competitive attitude also oustide gaming.

Both those attitudes are toxic in my opinion, sometimes also merged into a single individual. Playing for winning doesn't make you a WAAC player: I mean once the game is set no one should make mistakes on purpose. But if you have a list that can't be defeated in your local meta, have the models to tone it down and refuse to do it, then you're a WAAC and if other people start avoiding you at the tables it's well earned. Even if you don't cheat or play dirty.

All I've ever wanted to be was a real WAAC player. But ughhh... most Knights are so ugly.

Still, it's something to aspire to.

Am I not truly a WAAC player if I don't get angry when I lose? Am I just a WAAC poser?

What if my goal is the make the most beautiful, thematically cohesive, well-painted army based on only WAAC-tier meta picks and netlisting? Surely that qualifies me for distinguished WAAC-hood.

Gee, yes, anything can get you fired. Unless you stole billions from rural bank system, or sent armed goons after tax investigator who revealed said theft, or send an assassin to kill said investigator, then that's OK, and you get to become high ranking official in Polish government. But all of this is minor stuff next to ""labels"", whatever they are, eh?

Barking at the wrong barn door. My dad lost job strictly, because he wasn't from PiS.

Cute. Maybe I'd believe you if you didn't live in a country where a band of sieg-heiling neonazis can make big, public mock hanging of "racial enemies" and the minister of justice calls them "good boys!". Which is by the way the same country where collaborators of real, actual nazis from 40s are glorified for their war crimes, and fascists wearing racist emblems do battles with baseball bats, chains and mauls regularly after football matches only to be later courted by government as ""patriots"" while policemen who dare to investigate their real, actual crimes (by which I mean stuff that classifies as attempted murder, not the alt right fake news stated above) are being suspended.

Both my grandmothers brothers died durning the warsaw uprising. You can find both of them under the name kuciak on powazki. their father and my grand father was shot in a group execution in 1941. On my mothers side my great grandfather was beaten up by Lupaszko for the sole fact that communists put a teacher in the village. Later on the communists from NKWD, tortured him and my grand father to tell them where the priests were hiding, and my grand father who was 14 at the time had to have his hand amputated. My grandmothers wife is jewish, and only by miracle did they survive. And yes I know how fethed up stuff is, because after the war my grandparents had to move to Gdansk, because Lupaszko was hunting people who were jews, because to him jews=communist.
Yes 30% of the people that went to vote, aka 15% of all people that could vote voted for PiS, who are nazis at worse and fasisct at best, but the rest did not. So don't say that everyone who lives in Poland is a nazi. As the kicking out of job goes. Both sides do the same stuff. my father wasn't from PiS, got kicked out of work. But Szymon Holowania was just a religious guy and Lis kicked him out in a nasty way from Newsweek, just because he wanted it to be more western left, then Polish left.

WAAC: Win at all costs: Split up into two subcatergories:
1. Overly competitve as in always trying to win and winning is the only reason he plays.
(that dude is not toxic, only overly competitive, generally they can tone down their lists but will always be a challange to play against.)

2. TFG, that also cheats, spams chese and bullies little timmys new marine army. (this guy is toxic)


Edit: atleast for me, i differ that way.
Then ofcourse you get the other side , The casual at all cost, anti cheese brigade that hates tournament or any competitive minded player. equal potential for toxicity.

Aaand we broke Godwin's Law.

Shut 'er down.

Karol wrote:
I don't think it has to do much with inteligance. You can be very inteligent and still want to wipe out what or who ever is the opposing camp. History has a ton examples of people or whole groups like that.

Hate or disgust about the "other" is not limited to people living in the hills. As much as I would like it to be so, because god damn, why are the hill people bad to live around no matter what continent they are on.

Don't you come talking about hills around here you goldurned flat lander. Jeezum crow kids these days grumble grumble.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Aaand we broke Godwin's Law.

Shut 'er down.

Unfortunately, in this case it was the best example to use. I considered using a different multiple murder, but without knowing the age and cultural understanding of the other posters it is difficult to find an example everybody would understand. I figured a school shooting would derail my point because off the politics around gun violence and something like the Mi Lai Massacre would require more explanation and that could distract from my point. I wasn't being careless in my use.

Not Online!!! wrote:
WAAC: Win at all costs: Split up into two subcatergories:
1. Overly competitve as in always trying to win and winning is the only reason he plays.
(that dude is not toxic, only overly competitive, generally they can tone down their lists but will always be a challange to play against.)

2. TFG, that also cheats, spams chese and bullies little timmys new marine army. (this guy is toxic)


Edit: atleast for me, i differ that way.
Then ofcourse you get the other side , The casual at all cost, anti cheese brigade that hates tournament or any competitive minded player. equal potential for toxicity.

While a real #2 definition player is (thankfully,) like the bad version of a unicorn, I really find the “powergaming police” to be the worst thing in the game, while also being only moderately uncommon. Just ran into a guy on one of the fb groups that insisted marines taking scouts was powergaming and they should feel bad for not following the fluff (as it is in his head.)

They tend to have a very loose grip on the state of the game and arbitrarily pick what they find to be powergaming, and then feel morally superior for not taking part in such a “boorish activity.”

I've always been somewhat of a powergamer, whether it comes to video games or table top games. I simply can't help but notice when a certain build is optimal over another or when a certain piece of wargear is vastly more cost-effective than the alternatives, and I think it's kind of unreasonable that I should be expected to consciously handicap a list or army because someone else insists that they should be able to cobble together whatever sub-optimal build they want to and still be competitive. To me part of the joy of playing games is learning how the mechanics and systems work and how to best utilize them. If I'm going to put so much effort into modeling and painting I don't see why I shouldn't put any effort into the "game" aspects as well.

That being said, I don't care that much about winning, I care about having a good time. I don't want to curb stomp someone with a sub-optimal list just to show my dominance at playing with toy soldiers because that isn't fun. I would rather that people get over their hangups about building optimal lists being somehow immoral and build the best lists they can because to me that's part of the fun and challenge, but I won't tell someone else they're wrong for playing a certain way and will compromise to meet them at their level.

This conflict between casuals and tryhards is in every gaming community I've ever been a part of. If you guys think there's vitriol in this thread you should see Dark Souls forums whenever a new game comes out. There are always people who think you're a literal sociopath for using systems and mechanics built into the game because they are totally averse to any kind of competitiveness, and there are people like me who don't understand why you would play a game that allows or encourages you to be competitive if you're just going to consciously ignore and avoid that entire aspect of the game.

Apart from cheating, dishonesty, or generally being a jerk, neither way is wrong. I just wish that more people were willing to compromise instead of being so absolute that their way of playing is morally correct with no room for meeting halfway.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
WAAC: Win at all costs: Split up into two subcatergories:
1. Overly competitve as in always trying to win and winning is the only reason he plays.
(that dude is not toxic, only overly competitive, generally they can tone down their lists but will always be a challange to play against.)

2. TFG, that also cheats, spams chese and bullies little timmys new marine army. (this guy is toxic)


Edit: atleast for me, i differ that way.
Then ofcourse you get the other side , The casual at all cost, anti cheese brigade that hates tournament or any competitive minded player. equal potential for toxicity.

While a real #2 definition player is (thankfully,) like the bad version of a unicorn, I really find the “powergaming police” to be the worst thing in the game, while also being only moderately uncommon. Just ran into a guy on one of the fb groups that insisted marines taking scouts was powergaming and they should feel bad for not following the fluff (as it is in his head.)

They tend to have a very loose grip on the state of the game and arbitrarily pick what they find to be powergaming, and then feel morally superior for not taking part in such a “boorish activity.”

My own experience is that The Powergaming Police as you call them (CAAC as some unnamed others call them) are very prevalent in FB groups, forums, etc where people talk about Warhammer, but very very rarely actually play the game, because doing so never fits what they have in their head as "The Way The Game Should Go."

Standard powergamers, who I find approximately equally annoying (players who do not cheat but treat every game like its top tables at NOVA and rigidly adhere to whatever is the current netlist meta, and actively seek out any situation where they know they will win more easily including going after new players and players they know have limited/subpar collections) tend to be slightly less prevalent on the internet but waaaaaaaaay more present in normal, in-person groups.

Both of them are equally likely to ruin your in-person game experience or make certain that a new player never shows up to your game day again, but if you put a dollar in my wallet for every powergamer I have had to deal with over the years and take one out for every "powergamer policeman" I'd have myself enough money for a 1500 point army or so.

I powergame with my favorite stuff. I start my lists with things I really want to play regardless of power, but most game systems give you room to build from there. Sacrificing 9% of my list to make the stuff I really like play better? I'll make that choice every time. I have zero problem with playing things that aren't necessarily optimal, but fun and cool. That doesn't mean that including them can't be done in a way that maximizes their effectiveness or the effectiveness of the rest of the list.

I only play ITC tournaments or practice games for ITC tournaments. Every once in awhile I'll do an escalation league but typically everyone brings competitive lists to those, too. I don't see anything fun about losing before dice are rolled so I typically build the best list I can. Before I start a new army, I just check to see what units are viable in competitive lists. If I only like an army because of x, y, and z units, but those units are terrible for competitive play, I will pick a different army.

 Toofast wrote:
I only play ITC tournaments or practice games for ITC tournaments. Every once in awhile I'll do an escalation league but typically everyone brings competitive lists to those, too. I don't see anything fun about losing before dice are rolled so I typically build the best list I can. Before I start a new army, I just check to see what units are viable in competitive lists. If I only like an army because of x, y, and z units, but those units are terrible for competitive play, I will pick a different army.

But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

Snip

 Crimson wrote:
But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

Because if everyone does their best: it will not be an auto-win at all (they will all be playing to a similar competitive level) unless a "fluff-bunny" walks in when things get serious.

Because the consistent means to attempt to win is to mitigate as much of the randomness as possible.

- Auto hit weapons.
- Buffing auras.
- Buffing Stratagems.
- Re-rolls.
- Buffing clan/faction/chapter/god traits.
- Warlord traits.
- Not overcharging unless hits are buffed.

I could go on: every choice either improves or detracts from the "consistency" of your tactics and strategy to work as planned.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

Because if everyone does their best: it will not be an auto-win at all (they will all be playing to a similar competitive level) unless a "fluff-bunny" walks in when things get serious.

But if everyone just plays 'fluff-bunny' armies, it is still even. You can play seriously with and use tactics with 'fluff-bunny' armies. Emphasising choosing the best stuff possible is pretty pointless, considering how easy it is; it really doesn't take much skill. Doing so merely limits the amount of armies and unit combinations that can be played.

Because the consistent means to attempt to win is to mitigate as much of the randomness as possible.

- Auto hit weapons.
- Buffing auras.
- Buffing Stratagems.
- Re-rolls.
- Buffing clan/faction/chapter/god traits.
- Warlord traits.
- Not overcharging unless hits are buffed.

I could go on: every choice either improves or detracts from the "consistency" of your tactics and strategy to work as planned.

But you can do all that with bad units too.

 Crimson wrote:

Because the consistent means to attempt to win is to mitigate as much of the randomness as possible.

- Auto hit weapons.
- Buffing auras.
- Buffing Stratagems.
- Re-rolls.
- Buffing clan/faction/chapter/god traits.
- Warlord traits.
- Not overcharging unless hits are buffed.

I could go on: every choice either improves or detracts from the "consistency" of your tactics and strategy to work as planned.

But you can do all that with bad units too.

Not necessarily. The game system is going to make certain units and wargear options mathematically favorable compared to others in terms of random results. That's why, for example, plasma is so heavily favored over melta in this edition. It's easy to buff a unit so that they reroll 1's to hit, which gives you consistent damage at medium range compared to having to get into extreme close range to minimize the randomness of melta damage. Talizvar has an excellent point - the key to success in a game like 40k is in leveraging the mathematics involved and mitigating randomness as much as possible, and because of the nature of the game there is always going to be one unit that is better at doing that than the others for the points. Expecting people to play with bad units is just asking them to accept more randomness, because randomness is more "fair" to players who ignore the math behind the game. The implication is that people should have to consciously avoid taking control over the results of the game and allow it to be based on more random outcomes because that is more fun, but not everyone sees it that way. There's nothing inherently more "fun" about playing either way, it's just a matter of personal preference.

 Luciferian wrote:

Not necessarily. The game system is going to make certain units and wargear options mathematically favorable compared to others in terms of random results. That's why, for example, plasma is so heavily favored over melta in this edition. It's easy to buff a unit so that they reroll 1's to hit, which gives you consistent damage at medium range compared to having to get into extreme close range to minimize the randomness of melta damage. Talizvar has an excellent point - the key to success in a game like 40k is in leveraging the mathematics involved and mitigating randomness as much as possible, and because of the nature of the game there is always going to be one unit that is better at doing that than the others for the points. Expecting people to play with bad units is just asking them to accept more randomness, because randomness is more "fair" to players who ignore the math behind the game. The implication is that people should have to consciously avoid taking control over the results of the game and allow it to be based on more random outcomes because that is more fun, but not everyone sees it that way. There's nothing inherently more "fun" about playing either way, it's just a matter of personal preference.

So you meant that mitigating the randomness of the plasma is easier than mitigating the randomness of the melta? Certainly true. The former takes buying a buff bot, the latter careful manoeuvring. Thus effectively using melta requires more tactics and skill than effectively using plasma. Plasma is obviously better weapon, no question about that; melta probably results more interesting and tactical games though. Some people place more value on this than on winning.

 Crimson wrote:

So you meant that mitigating the randomness of the plasma is easier than mitigating the randomness of the melta? Certainly true. The former takes buying a buff bot, the latter careful manoeuvring. Thus effectively using melta requires more tactics and skill than effectively using plasma. Plasma is obviously better weapon, no question about that; melta probably results more interesting and tactical games though. Some people place more value on this than on winning.

That was just one clear example but you can pick any you like. Plasma is a more consistent weapon; it's not a question of tactics or maneuver, it's purely mathematical. Melta is simply more random, and some people don't agree that randomness is interesting or tactical. It's not even necessarily about winning above everything, it's just playing the game as a "game", or rather a system of rules and limitations which are of benefit to understand and utilize.

I generally go for a mix of casual and competitive - with the aim being to use most/all of the units I want, whist maintaining enough 'good' units to ensure that my army can still compete reasonably well.

Typically, I'll keep the following as fluffy as possible:
- Unit selection/army composition
- Some/all characters and their wargear
- Army Regiment/Dynasty/Kabal
- Warlord traits
- Artefacts
- Allies (rarely ever use them, never use them for CPs)

However, I'll usually tend towards the competitive side when it comes to:
- CP bonus from Detachments
- Unit loadouts
- Vehicle loadouts

In terms of how that affects my armies:

IG
I tend towards Infantry lists, comprised almost exclusively of Infantry Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads and Scions (though with the new CA rules, I might give an armoured list a go). In terms of characters, I actually have a Hydra theme (based on the Marvel organisation) - and so I have Lord Commissar Red Skull, Baron Strucker and Baron Zemo as Company Commanders, and various others from the comics (Gorgon as a Primaris Psyker, Grim Reaper as a Tempestor Prime etc.). I've tried to give them all wargear based on their powers/equipment from the comics (Gorgon has a healing factor and turns people to stone, so he has Gaze of the Emperor and the Death Mask of Ollanius; Baron Strucker has a magic gauntlet thing, so he has a Power Fist, Grim Reaper has a scythe-arm, so he gets a Power Axe etc.). I've also got the Winter Soldier as an Eversor Assassin (though, thinking about it, Marbo might now be a better choice).

(Obviously I've been converting the characters as best I can.)

Anyway, what I like about this is that my characters really feel like individuals (rather than just Company Commander #346). What's more, whilst my wargear, warlord traits, artefacts (and probably unit selection) aren't optimal, I never feel like I'm crippling my list as a result. Also, even if my characters do die, they're free to come back for the next game because they're Marvel villains.


Sadly, I can't say the same for Dark Eldar. I like infantry and so want to use a lot of Kabalites, as well as stuff like Mandrakes, Incubi, and Scourges. I also choose my Kabal based on fluff, rather than function (and sadly I happen to like the worst one), as well as my Warlord Trait and artefacts. However, my lists almost always end up feeling very weak as a result, with my army being both short on long-range weapons and also really lacking punch (not ideal on a glass-cannon army). Even if I get the first turn, my alpha strike just feels pillow-fisted. Also, whilst I'm content to always give the above IG list 3 artefacts, my DE list feels far too short on CPs for that to be viable. Which is a real shame because DE have some really fluffy artefacts. Same goes for the stratagem to give my other characters extra Warlord Traits - I want to take the regeneration trait on my Haemonculus for fluff reasons, but it feels like unless I take the +d3CP trait, I'm just screwing myself over. It's made all the worse by the fact that DE characters are pretty awful in general. There are only 3 of them (not counting special characters), with barely any options. So warlord traits and artefacts are basically the only way to customise them to any meaningful extent.

With Necrons... we'll see when CA hits. Currently, it seems like I can barely get anything in a list before i run out of points.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So you meant that mitigating the randomness of the plasma is easier than mitigating the randomness of the melta? Certainly true. The former takes buying a buff bot, the latter careful manoeuvring. Thus effectively using melta requires more tactics and skill than effectively using plasma. Plasma is obviously better weapon, no question about that; melta probably results more interesting and tactical games though. Some people place more value on this than on winning.

That was just one clear example but you can pick any you like. Plasma is a more consistent weapon; it's not a question of tactics or maneuver, it's purely mathematical. Melta is simply more random, and some people don't agree that randomness is interesting or tactical. It's not even necessarily about winning above everything, it's just playing the game as a "game", or rather a system of rules and limitations which are of benefit to understand and utilize.

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

 Crimson wrote:

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way, but there's nothing inherently superior or more skillful about it, either. It's just placing arbitrary limitations on yourself.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way, but there's nothing inherently superior or more skillful about it, either. It's just placing arbitrary limitations on yourself.

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

 Crimson wrote:

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

Perhaps, but not even complete cheese lists are unbeatable in every situation. It's about choosing the right options for your enemy, mission, etc. Surely we can agree that that is a valid part of the overall game and that putting thought into your selections based on the situation you face doesn't make you a low-skill sociopath who lives to steal ice cream cones from children?

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

Perhaps, but not even complete cheese lists are unbeatable in every situation. It's about choosing the right options for your enemy, mission, etc. Surely we can agree that that is a valid part of the overall game and that putting thought into your selections based on the situation you face doesn't make you a low-skill sociopath who lives to steal ice cream cones from children?

I have never implied that competitive players are sociopaths. Though what you describe basically sounds like list tailoring to me. Now if we're talking about building a balanced army that has tools to deal with varied situations, then that's different.

 Crimson wrote:

I have never implied that competitive players are sociopaths. Though what you describe basically sounds like list tailoring to me. Now if we're talking about building a balanced army that has tools to deal with varied situations, then that's different.

That's more or less what I'm talking about. Not necessarily looking up a cheesy netlist or the previous GT winning list and copying it, but making optimal choices based on the situations you're likely to face. This debate seems to be largely stuck on definitions of terms, but it seems like some people think that anything other than choosing a fluffy list without any consideration for what may or may not be optimal "game" wise makes you a bad player or even a bad person.

I just can’t see the appeal of winning a game on a spreadsheet before you’ve even met your opponent. Spreadsheeting is not a huge intellectual challenge - there’s a general limit to how complex the maths can get when it’s usually capped at 2D6. Nor is writing a battle plan for such a simple system.

How well you adapt on the fly, how you react to your opponent and how you force them to react to you are the real measures of skill. Which is why I think a game should be won or lost on the tabletop, rather than the laptop.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I have never implied that competitive players are sociopaths. Though what you describe basically sounds like list tailoring to me. Now if we're talking about building a balanced army that has tools to deal with varied situations, then that's different.

That's more or less what I'm talking about. Not necessarily looking up a cheesy netlist or the previous GT winning list and copying it, but making optimal choices based on the situations you're likely to face. This debate seems to be largely stuck on definitions of terms, but it seems like some people think that anything other than choosing a fluffy list without any consideration for what may or may not be optimal "game" wise makes you a bad player or even a bad person.

Thing is, having a balanced list with tools for different situations does not necessarily mean choosing the best tool for each of those situations. For example, sure, you need to include some anti armour on your list, and anti armour unit A might be the best available, but you still choose the anti armour unit B because you really like the model or it fits the theme of your list better, etc.

kombatwombat wrote:
I just can’t see the appeal of winning a game on a spreadsheet before you’ve even met your opponent. Spreadsheeting is not a huge intellectual challenge - there’s a general limit to how complex the maths can get when it’s usually capped at 2D6. Nor is writing a battle plan for such a simple system.

How well you adapt on the fly, how you react to your opponent and how you force them to react to you are the real measures of skill. Which is why I think a game should be won or lost on the tabletop, rather than the laptop.

What does your last sentence even really mean in practical terms, though? That you shouldn't put thought into your lists ahead of time or pay attention to the meta game at all?

I'm by no means claiming that trying to make an optimized list makes you an elite genius or a great player. Most of the combat interactions in the game are based on the probability of only 216 different outcomes so it is relatively simplistic, thanks to the D6 system. All I'm saying is that that information is there, and it doesn't necessarily make you a scrub to keep it in mind when building your list as opposed to going in blind to the meta. Is that really such a controversial opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Thing is, having a balanced list with tools for different situations does not necessarily mean choosing the best tool for each of those situations. For example, sure, you need to include some anti armour on your list, and anti armour unit A might be the best available, but you still choose the anti armour unit B because you really like the model or it fits the theme of your list better, etc.

Sure, but what is wrong with wanting to pick the better option? Remember, I'm not talking down to anyone or telling them they're playing the game the wrong way, but I don't understand why people insist that you make the conscious decision to not pick the better option when given the choice.

 Luciferian wrote:


I'm by no means claiming that trying to make an optimized list makes you an elite genius or a great player. Most of the combat interactions in the game are based on the probability of only 216 different outcomes so it is relatively simplistic, thanks to the D6 system. All I'm saying is that that information is there, and it doesn't necessarily make you a scrub to keep it in mind when building your list as opposed to going in blind to the meta. Is that really such a controversial opinion?

No one is saying that it makes them a scrub. It is just so happens that certain competitive players think that they're super smart for knowing which units are better and scoffing at the 'fluff-bunnies' which choose suboptimal units, whilst in all likelihood the said fluff-bunnies are perfectly aware of what the competitively optimal choices would be and merely choose not to utilise them for aesthetic, thematic or other such reasons.

 Luciferian wrote:

Sure, but what is wrong with wanting to pick the better option?

There is nothing inherently wrong with it.

 Crimson wrote:

No one is saying that it makes them a scrub. It is just so happens that certain competitive players think that they're super smart for knowing which units are better and scoffing at the 'fluff-bunnies' which choose suboptimal units, whilst in all likelihood the said fluff-bunnies are perfectly aware of what the competitively optimal choices would be and merely choose not to utilise them for aesthetic, thematic or other such reasons.

I hope you can see that I'm trying to have a good faith discussion here, and that I'm trying to avoid generalizing or painting "the other side" with a large, absolute and unfavorable brush. I don't speak for anyone else but I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing a fluffy list or even an intentionally bad one. Your models, your choice. However, if I'm being completely honest, much of the language being used to describe meta gamers, power gamers, WAACers or whatever you want to call them does not allow the same respect for personal choice or preference. Maybe this whole thing is about the resentment between each side and much of it is based on negative past experiences with one type of player or the other, which is somewhat understandable.

 Luciferian wrote:
What does your last sentence even really mean in practical terms, though? That you shouldn't put thought into your lists ahead of time or pay attention to the meta game at all?

I'm by no means claiming that trying to make an optimized list makes you an elite genius or a great player. Most of the combat interactions in the game are based on the probability of only 216 different outcomes so it is relatively simplistic, thanks to the D6 system. All I'm saying is that that information is there, and it doesn't necessarily make you a scrub to keep it in mind when building your list as opposed to going in blind to the meta. Is that really such a controversial opinion?

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

The game is currently determined according to the following ratio (the numbers aren't precise here but they illustrate the point) - 40% player decisions on the tabletop, 40% list building, 20% luck of the dice. In my opinion, by far and away the most determining factor should be the most difficult and dynamic one as that's the one which has the greatest spread of skill. Which would mean say 70% player decisions on the tabletop, 10% list building, 20% luck of the dice. Some reasons why:

- two evenly matched players where the only determining factor is luck will at worst see a 60-40 win-loss if one player gets all of the luck and their opponent gets none
- an extremely lucky but unskilled player with a strong netlist could still be beaten by an experienced player
- at the top tables of a major event the skill level should be similar, and a well-constructed list gives the player an edge in a tight competition but not an overwhelming advantage
- army balance woes become less of a problem; you can take Terminators because you like them without unduly hurting your chances, or take a Fellblade without automatically handing your opponent a crushing victory

Again, the numbers aren't super precise, but they illustrate the point - the player decisions on the table show the greatest skill and hence should be the greatest determining factor. You can't download skill from the results of NOVA and beat your opponent over the head with them.

The WAAC tournament players always have better looking/painted armies that I've seen compared to most of the casuals I've seen that aren't STRICTLY modelers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'd think a 7th edition White Scars force with a Riptide Wing would look bad until you've seen it put together cohesively.

Okay? But in the actual game, list building is an important part.

And it's far easier to say "Build your hardest list" to get a mostly even game than it is to say "Build a list that's kinda hard".

In the first one, with the best list you can manage, you all are aiming for the top. You know it's no holds barred, just bring your A game.

In the latter... Is taking all Plasma too good? Should I take some Meltas? What about Storm Bolters, are those too cheesy for the cost? Is a named character too much? What if it's a bad named character?

kombatwombat wrote:

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

The game is currently determined according to the following ratio (the numbers aren't precise here but they illustrate the point) - 40% player decisions on the tabletop, 40% list building, 20% luck of the dice. In my opinion, by far and away the most determining factor should be the most difficult and dynamic one as that's the one which has the greatest spread of skill. Which would mean say 70% player decisions on the tabletop, 10% list building, 20% luck of the dice. Some reasons why:

- two evenly matched players where the only determining factor is luck will at worst see a 60-40 win-loss if one player gets all of the luck and their opponent gets none
- an extremely lucky but unskilled player with a strong netlist could still be beaten by an experienced player
- at the top tables of a major event the skill level should be similar, and a well-constructed list gives the player an edge in a tight competition but not an overwhelming advantage
- army balance woes become less of a problem; you can take Terminators because you like them without unduly hurting your chances, or take a Fellblade without automatically handing your opponent a crushing victory

Again, the numbers aren't super precise, but they illustrate the point - the player decisions on the table show the greatest skill and hence should be the greatest determining factor. You can't download skill from the results of NOVA and beat your opponent over the head with them.

Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

Has anyone said they enjoy that, though?

What I saw being said was more along the lines of "Bring your best, so it's more even than one person bringing their best and the other bringing something subpar."

A mix of the two. I'm not interested in chasing the flavour of the month, but I like to build a strong list with what I've got.

kombatwombat wrote:

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

Don't ascribe that intention to every meta gamer, though - many or even most of them probably just enjoy working within rules systems to figure out optimized builds, and there's absolutely nothing unfun, mean-spirited or unskilled about that in itself. Don't blame them if in the process of doing so they happen to make a list that is just that advantaged over a list without any such consideration put into it, because that's not their fault. It's also not fair to insist that because you happen to like units that are in a poor state in the current meta, everyone else has to use them too in order to make them artificially competitive. I know it sucks that a lot of awesome, fluffy units just don't cut it, and I don't like it either, but it's not other players' responsibility to account for the imbalances or cater their armies to your preferred list. Unless, of course, you tell your opponent you'd like to use terminators because you like them and they agree to tone it down for the sake of fun.

If someone sets out to find the most outrageously overpowered combinations and totally break the game, and then knowingly faces that list off against sub-optimal lists for the purpose of making someone else feel bad about their army, that person is simply a douche. But not everyone who chooses optimal options in their list has that motivation. I have personally gone as far as making a good list which a lot of people would consider frustrating, then made another list with another faction that is specifically designed to hard counter the first one, explained the choices to an opponent and let them play the counter list with my own models. Because to me, it is fun to experiment and find powerful combinations as well as think about their weaknesses and how to exploit them, and to share that information with other players, more than it's fun just to win for the sake of it. It's fun to see two forces at their absolute best facing off against each other and using combinations of unit abilities and stratagems to do things that would normally be unusual. Winning against an inferior army that has no chance, I will agree, is not fun for anyone, and that's not what I'm about.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

You cannot win in the list building stage, you can only lose in it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I only play ITC tournaments or practice games for ITC tournaments. Every once in awhile I'll do an escalation league but typically everyone brings competitive lists to those, too. I don't see anything fun about losing before dice are rolled so I typically build the best list I can. Before I start a new army, I just check to see what units are viable in competitive lists. If I only like an army because of x, y, and z units, but those units are terrible for competitive play, I will pick a different army.

But why it is fun to win before the dice are rolled?

It's not my job to build a decent army list for my opponent, that's their job. If they don't do that, they deserve to lose before dice are rolled. Building a decent list is not rocket science. There's about 15 different sources you can check online to see what units are decent for your army. If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win. It's the same for taking your car to the track. If you just buy stuff to make your car look cool, while someone else spent all their money on engine, trans, and suspension, you don't stand a chance. It's the same with playing a sport. If you spend all day working out your abs and biceps you aren't going to be a very effective lineman. Again, it's not my job to tell someone else how to build their army, or their car, etc. It's my job to build my whatever the best I can to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Everyone knows that plasma is mathematically better, choosing it requires no skill. But some people prefer to 'play the game as a game' only after the army selection. Choose a fluffy army, then try to make the most of it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way, but there's nothing inherently superior or more skillful about it, either. It's just placing arbitrary limitations on yourself.

Certainly limiting yourself only to the most powerful stuff is placing arbitrary limitations on yourself?

The mental gymnastics you do to make it seem like people who build better lists are somehow inferior at the game is downright hilarious, and I've seen it in every competitive hobby I've ever engaged in (typically from the losing side).

"You only beat me because you have a turbo"
"What's stopping you from going forced induction? It's within the rules for this class"

"You only won because you picked a cheesy army, anyone can do that"
"So why didn't you build a better army?"

"Your team only wins because you have better recruits"
"Maybe your coaches should work a bit harder on the recruiting trail, that's part of the game"

And continue ad infinitum...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kombatwombat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

That's only true if your opponent is voluntarily handicapping themselves. Again, that's their prerogative. But you don't get to voluntarily handicap yourself and then whinge that you lost. If you want to take units because they're subpar, you should be ok with losing as long as you got to roll dice and make "pew pew" noises with your fluffy army.

I play a mix of both casual and WAAC - when it is required.

In my local gaming club? I run a foot slogging Custodes force, with Allarus termites and even a venerable contemptor dread. The members play what they find to be decent or cool and we get new people learning/joining all the time so casual lists help break them in and learn.

A tournament that is marketed as competitive? You better believe I'll spam MSU Custodians squads and jet bikes, power stratagems and bring soup to ream you dry with no lube.

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

 Toofast wrote:
Building a decent list is not rocket science. There's about 15 different sources you can check online to see what units are decent for your army.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Building a decent list is not rocket science. There's about 15 different sources you can check online to see what units are decent for your army.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It is not your responsibility, but the game is more fun if you do. Ideally GW could balance this thing so that such measures were not needed, but that's not the case.

Some people just need to understand (and accept) that competitive gaming is just a fraction of 40k.

40k is about assembling, painting and collecting toy soldiers. There's also the game section but a large part of it is about two friends that just want to enjoy some time together in a different way than playing a videogame, a board game or football in the backyard. Competitive game is also part of 40k, and I also love it, but it's just a fraction of it, not the only purpose of 40k.

I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

As Crimson said the best games are the closest ones, regardless of who wins at the end.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Building a decent list is not rocket science. There's about 15 different sources you can check online to see what units are decent for your army.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It's not our job to make our lists good for our opponent.
Why should we take that responsibility?
It works both ways.

kombatwombat wrote:

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!

I have to nitpick, but that isn't how this works. Let's say in 7th one person thought Jetbikes with Scatterlasers were the coolest and made a large list with that, and his opponent thought a Wych army on foot would be the coolest. Those two people meet and the Craftworld player would have wiped the floor with the Drukhari player. Hell, in this edition a player could play with Imperial Knights "because they are cool" and dominate their Grey Knights friend.

I have played those type of games(pick the coolest) and in those games it always comes down to who has better rules for their models. Nothing even about it.

 SHUPPET wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

You cannot win in the list building stage, you can only lose in it.

100%

Building the best list you can build doesn't win you the game before it starts but it does mean you haven't lost before it starts.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

But then you have basically excluded 90% of the units in the game. I'd rather not do that.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

No, the only practical way is to tailor each other list in order to get a balanced game. Both players create the entire game as they like, making their lists together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

But then you have basically excluded 90% of the units in the game. I'd rather not do that.

And lots of factions as well, since they're not all equally powerful at their best lists.

 Blackie wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

What it's saying is that the decisions made on the table should be overwhelmingly what determines the outcome of the game.

In order to approach that goal we need lists to be of equal power. The only practical way to do that is to have both players build armies as powerful as possible within the limits of the rules as this is a power level which is available for everyone to see (across all of the factions) and work towards.

No, the only practical way is to tailor each other list in order to get a balanced game. Both players create the entire game as they like, making their lists together.

That's the better method but many people seem to be talking about pickup games where that really isn't an option - they wouldn't be having these issues if they were playing with friends (who aren't donkey caves).

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I have never implied that competitive players are sociopaths. Though what you describe basically sounds like list tailoring to me. Now if we're talking about building a balanced army that has tools to deal with varied situations, then that's different.

That's more or less what I'm talking about. Not necessarily looking up a cheesy netlist or the previous GT winning list and copying it, but making optimal choices based on the situations you're likely to face. This debate seems to be largely stuck on definitions of terms, but it seems like some people think that anything other than choosing a fluffy list without any consideration for what may or may not be optimal "game" wise makes you a bad player or even a bad person.

No, see, this is not what anyone has ever had an issue with.

Looking up and ebaying a new netlist whenever one wins a tournament, or playing a completely skewed spam list with only one unit times however many you can fit in 2k, or knowing what's in your opponent's collection and stacking against it, are the three biggest "powergamer complaints" I see managing a large group of 40k players.

If someone says "man, I dislike powergamers" it's so strange to me that people think "oh, so anyone who makes a strong TAC list is a powergamer then, yeah, I get it, you're a jerk."

The guy that magnetizes his marines and swaps them to whatever is currently good in the codex, paints them a custom chapter so he can play different chapter tactics, and actively seeks competitive opponents to practice for events with: Great. Fine. Some of the best tournament-crushing players in the whole US play in my area and we have them at our tables all the time. None of the guys whose name I have read in a top 16 have ever driven a player away from my club, in fact they bring people in looking to play them.

The guys that are just hunting for the emotional high of a win, and can't actually handle competition, are the ones who suck to deal with. because the scummy dude who looks at his opponent's army list then swaps all the turrets on his russes and the heavy weapons on his HWTs around based on what they have isn't going to come in looking for a game against one of the tournament guys, he's going to look for someone new who hasn't caught on to his BS yet and he's going to give them a gak game, then we're never going to see that new player again.

 Blackie wrote:
I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

As Crimson said the best games are the closest ones, regardless of who wins at the end.

So much this.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your grievance is not with other players, it's with GW. What you want is a much more balanced game in general. If you want list building to be accountable for only 10% of variance in win/loss ratios, everything else being equal, you want an extremely balanced game (like 30k Space Marines vs. Space Marines balanced).

Sure, that’s probably true. But I can’t see how people enjoy the fact that the game is unbalanced to the point that you can win in the list-building stage.

Judging from many, many discussions, that's exactly what people want. They want list building and combo-stacking to be the pinnacle of skill in the game, just like a deckbuilding game.

For me, I have zero interest in pure unfluffy WAAC lists. The major selling point for 40k as a game to me is the rich history since the game itself is one of the worst designed games I have ever seen. I'll build lists that try to match the background as much as possible, but since losing every game would just make me say feth this and quit, I have to give some thought to what is good or bad just to make sure that I don't get fed up with how badly armies are designed. I am old enough to remember when GW cared about that, and fondly recall many White Dwarf articles talking about the "spirit of the game" and how those who took the flexibility of army lists to powergame were missing the point of the hobby.

I remember the days when Army Composition and Sportsmanship were key parts of winning an event such that if you showed up to steamroll people with a min/maxed list that barely resembled the army you might win every game but would lose enough on comp that you wouldn't win the tournament, or that people who were rules lawyers and quibbled over the slightest things were dinged on Sportsmanship because they were making the game unfun. I firmly believe although this is another topic of discussion, that these things need to come back in some form. Given that Warhammer is a full-breadth hobby and not a CCG, to win a tournament should show that you are accomplished in all aspects of the hobby not just crunching out an "uber" list.

Again, WAAC isn't so much a set of actions, as a matter of attitude.

I've had games where I've been hopelessly outmatched in terms of army composition and player skill, and as a result seen my forces be buttered up and down the board. And I've still had a really, really good game.

I've had games where I've done the same to my opponent, and again, had a really, really good game.

The games that I haven't enjoyed have been against those seeking every advantage. Slow play. Rules Lawyering. Inappropriate Banter. Constant measuring and remeasuring forced upon me, as they take a far more casual approach. The old 'haha, you're just outside of Rapid Fire, but next turn I'll be, mysteriously, just inside charge range!'.

I don't mind people bringing well hard lists. I don't mind losing big, regardless of whether they're a 'better' player than me. It's only when someone is an obnoxious opponent that I won't fancy playing against them.

I'm in this for a hobby. My challenge in life comes from my career. I don't want to have to put up with unpleasant people when I'm not actually being paid (and paid quite well) to put up with unpleasant people. That's entirely regardless of what sort of list they've packed. A WAAC Fanatic will be just as joyless an opponent with an objectively soft list as a really good one.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I'm in this for a hobby. My challenge in life comes from my career. I don't want to have to put up with unpleasant people when I'm not actually being paid (and paid quite well) to put up with unpleasant people. That's entirely regardless of what sort of list they've packed. A WAAC Fanatic will be just as joyless an opponent with an objectively soft list as a really good one.

So much this. Some of my best games have come against players who absolutely disassembled my lists, but were effectively coaching me in real-time about how to do better ( and plan better) with them.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It is not your responsibility, but the game is more fun if you do. Ideally GW could balance this thing so that such measures were not needed, but that's not the case.

Spoken like somebody that's never played a TCG. A Yugioh deck that's themed around one of the characters isn't fun to play against BECAUSE how non-functional they are.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoken like somebody that's never played a TCG. A Yugioh deck that's themed around one of the characters isn't fun to play against BECAUSE how non-functional they are.

I used to play Magic aeons ago. Regardless, that's irrelevant. That something doesn't apply in Yougioh doesn't mean it couldn't apply in 40K; they're pretty damn different games.

40k, AoS, AT, Necro, Warmahords, Infinity, Bolt Action.

All require a level of personal effort above and beyond any TCG. For instance, we need to build and paint the models. We then put in hours of gaming to get better at it.

Now, nobody is saying you need to bring a soft list to any given game. And if you're doing a tournament, that's not in your interest.

But as I said above, it's your attitude and behaviour. If a person brings a well hard list every time, and smashes face every time, that's fine. That's their list, and it's to be respected. But if they're smashing soft lists, and then crowing about it like some kind of tactical genius, and their response to their opponent is little more than 'get gud, play2win'? That's.,....not terribly constructive. And given the hours we all put into our armies, actually kind of disrespectful to expect your opponents to only ever play at Your Level (apologies for the first person, I'm not having a direct go at you, just those that are problems)

MTG example. Used to be a group of us that'd being a couple of decks to the pub and enjoy a hand or three over drinks. Part of the Friday wind down. Good beer, good friends, fun games. Then some 'pro' players started showing up, and sucked all the fun out of it. Their decks were boring to fight. If they want that sort of game, great. Go for it. But, perhaps Friday Night In The Pub isn't the best time or place for it?

 Blackie wrote:

I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

It comes down to this for me. I think on some level, I play games to get beat. Winning a game trivially isn't really any fun, but losing because you intentionally held back isn't as fun as testing your limits. I want to be challenged, and while that can't happen every game, I find the experience I'm actually chasing is one where I give it my all whether that results in coming up short or winning by the skin of my teeth.

ValentineGames wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Building a decent list is not rocket science. There's about 15 different sources you can check online to see what units are decent for your army.

Yes, it indeed is not hard. That's kinda the point. Why bother?

If you just pick what looks cool, you aren't going to win.

Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!


My aim in this game is not to win. My win rate for this edition is above 60% and that's about where I like to keep it. If winning becomes too easy, I tone down my lists. Personally I really don't much enjoy the games where I just crush the opponent any more than I enjoy the games where that happens to me. The best games are the close ones where it could go either way, regardless of who eventually wins. I rather have a tight game that I lose than a landslide victory. I feel the game is better when neither player is running super tuned power lists; the game is very lethal these days, and it just flows better when the damage potential is not at the max. Massive alpha strikes deleting huge chunks of armies just doesn't really result an engaging or tactical gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

Horses for courses. The trick is to realise which horse to bring to a particular course for maximum enjoyment.

Yep. An excellent point.

If I were still playing Yugioh or MtG, it wasn't my job to make my deck bad for the opponent. Why should I take that responsibility in 40k?

It's not our job to make our lists good for our opponent.
Why should we take that responsibility?
It works both ways.

No, it's your job to understand you're playing a game that has a defined winner and loser, and to plan accordingly. If you sandbag your list for fluff reasons, you have exactly ONE person to blame for any negative playing experience.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoken like somebody that's never played a TCG. A Yugioh deck that's themed around one of the characters isn't fun to play against BECAUSE how non-functional they are.

I used to play Magic aeons ago. Regardless, that's irrelevant. That something doesn't apply in Yougioh doesn't mean it couldn't apply in 40K; they're pretty damn different games.

The process is still the same though.
1. Defined parameters (point values compared to previous formats)
2. Army/deck building
3. Play


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
40k, AoS, AT, Necro, Warmahords, Infinity, Bolt Action.

All require a level of personal effort above and beyond any TCG. For instance, we need to build and paint the models. We then put in hours of gaming to get better at it.

Now, nobody is saying you need to bring a soft list to any given game. And if you're doing a tournament, that's not in your interest.

But as I said above, it's your attitude and behaviour. If a person brings a well hard list every time, and smashes face every time, that's fine. That's their list, and it's to be respected. But if they're smashing soft lists, and then crowing about it like some kind of tactical genius, and their response to their opponent is little more than 'get gud, play2win'? That's.,....not terribly constructive. And given the hours we all put into our armies, actually kind of disrespectful to expect your opponents to only ever play at Your Level (apologies for the first person, I'm not having a direct go at you, just those that are problems)

MTG example. Used to be a group of us that'd being a couple of decks to the pub and enjoy a hand or three over drinks. Part of the Friday wind down. Good beer, good friends, fun games. Then some 'pro' players started showing up, and sucked all the fun out of it. Their decks were boring to fight. If they want that sort of game, great. Go for it. But, perhaps Friday Night In The Pub isn't the best time or place for it?

Why isn't it the best time or place for it? The player built a deck that actually functions well, and everyone else is playing Magic.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

It comes down to this for me. I think on some level, I play games to get beat. Winning a game trivially isn't really any fun, but losing because you intentionally held back isn't as fun as testing your limits. I want to be challenged, and while that can't happen every game, I find the experience I'm actually chasing is one where I give it my all whether that results in coming up short or winning by the skin of my teeth.

Nah, you want to win, not to be challenged.

If you really want to be challenged, and you consider yourself a skilled player, try to win with non-optimized lists. That's a real challenge. I'm not saying field a trash list if your tipycal one is too strong, just tone it down a bit so you can prove yourself and your opponent will have the chance to prove himself as well. List building means nothing in the era of internet. When I started, in the 90s it was a thing, now you have immediate access to tactical discussions and tournament winning lists. There are no skills in list building anymore, unless you completely ignore the internet.

Slayer-Fan....

Because MTG, like Warhammer, is a hobby. And different people have different takes.

If you’re solely interested in soft wins, and hashing a ‘casual’ group’s fun, I really don’t get the appeal. We were there to unwind after a hard week’s work, ready for the weekend. None of us particularly work on our decks, and none of us ever really buy Singles to boost our deck.

My approach is to buy a Boost Box and FatPack for a given release. I find that usually gives me most of the cards I really want, and loads of build options. I have my pick, then let everyone else have a good riffle though.

A ‘pro’ player gains nothing by stomping us. We’re not interested in that level of play, and our decks reflect it. All it does is show their deck is indeed effective. Not the player though. Because they’re at no point challenged by us.

And that can be applied to TTG. If you really enjoy the tournament scene, and have a desire to place well every time? That’s perfectly cool, because that’s your hobby. And again, that’s to be respected. But if you only ever field your well ‘ard Tournament list in even pick up games, and consider hose victories? I just don’t get it.

Serously, I’m not trying or even attempting to denigrate your take on the hobby here. It’s just a mindset I don’t understand. The game takes two people. And that requires a sort of social contract. It’s incredibly rude to simply demand every possible opponent toes a certain line.

Now, if you arrange a game with me, and say ‘I’ve got a tournament coming up, so I’m looking to polish my list’? Awesome. I’ll do my best to bend my collection into something suitable. But that comes with the unspoken agreement that you’ll be happy to step in as an opponent for a highly narrative scenario I enjoy playing at some point in the future. A sort of, a-ha, you roll my dice, I’ll roll yours arrangement.

I hope you see where I’m coming from!

The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Otherwise what contract is there?

That we both agree to the meaning of the majority of the English language, for starters.

Practically everything is social contract.

 Crimson wrote:


Or if both players do that, you still can get an even game, but with cool models!

I happen to think Imperial Knights and custodes jetbikes look cool. Or a Tau army with nothing but riptides, yvahra and broadsides. You happen to think a fluffy grey knight or necron army looks cool. So we're going to have an even game? Nope. Sometimes people might pick an army just because it looks cool, but end up with a top tier tournament list anyway while the opponent picks what they think looks cool and ends up with something at the bottom of the barrel. The only way to ensure a somewhat fair game is if both players bring a competitive list. I love the look of riptides and the yvahra. Am I the donkey-cave for taking 3 riptides and a yvahra because they look cool? Now people are going to call my list cheesy. So what's an acceptable amount of cheese? 3 riptides but drop the yvahra? Only 1 of each? Only 1 riptide? Who decides that? What if the only way I can field a 2k army is by using all the riptides I own? Unless both players have access to 4-5k points, those points include a bunch of suboptimal units, and they're willing to bring their entire collection to the store and then engage in a 30 minute philosophical discussion prior to the game on what is "too cheesy" (spoiler alert: that will never happen where I live or where I used to live, people want to just show up, throw down the 2k list they brought and start rolling dice), your way to play is rarely going to result in a balanced game. However, if both players bring what they feel is a competitive, tournament-worthy list, they can just show up, deploy, and start rolling dice.

TL;DR - Your insinuation that both players picking their army based on what looks cool will result in even games is myopic, asinine, and objectively false.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Otherwise what contract is there?

That we’re both there to have fun. To respect the effort each made in getting their army to the table. To respect each other’s hobby preferences.

To actually stick to the rules of the game (because they’re not Laws after all). To not touch each other’s models without permission. To not use each other’s dice without permission.

To be reasonably clean and fresh and not reeking of various bodily odours, so the experience isn’t physically unpleasant. To respect that each person has a time limit on their day, and that they may need faster play than normal.

To actually engage with the other player as a fellow human being, and an equal. To not be socially rude. To not piss yourself rather than go to the toilet. To not denigrate the other person’s decisions.

I mean, basically, how much time have you got tonight?

 Toofast wrote:
So what's an acceptable amount of cheese?

Well, as you're such a smart guy and a master list builder, you can probably asses the appropriate amount of cheese to ensure a fair game if you know that the opponent is bringing their Grey Knights.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
So what's an acceptable amount of cheese?

Well, as you're such a smart guy and a master list builder, you can probably asses the appropriate amount of cheese to ensure a fair game if you know that the opponent is bringing their Grey Knights.

So everyone else has to accommodate the Grey Knight player with a bunch of additional units to tone their list down really aggressively? Or is the Grey Knight player also expected to acquire some soup so that he can also tone his list up and let them meet in the middle?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

So everyone else has to accommodate the Grey Knight player with a bunch of additional units to tone their list down really aggressively? Or is the Grey Knight player also expected to acquire some soup so that he can also tone his list up and let them meet in the middle?

Either works. It would be great if this game was better balanced, but it isn't. If everyone always brings the best stuff available, it means that huge chunksof the units in the game and some entire factions might just as well not exist. Personally would just leave my Imperial Knight home if I know that the opponent is bringing Grey Knights. I'd take my Reivers instead, or something.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).

Otherwise what contract is there?

That we’re both there to have fun.

I'm ignoring the rest because you KNOW I was talking about the game and not just simply basic societal norms.

You're not playing the game unless you're having fun doing it. However it isn't on me if someone doesn't paint his models or won't make a decent army list. That won't affect the outcome of my list building and modeling (I can't paint so I plan to commission everything again).

You not having fun playing against an army is honestly NONE of my concern. I'm the last person to use the argument of L2P, but part of the game IS list building. If you don't want to put in the effort, be ready to lose games. I don't care. If anything, it makes the game worse for both players because you're not doing your best.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You not having fun playing against an army is honestly NONE of my concern. I'm the last person to use the argument of L2P, but part of the game IS list building. If you don't want to put in the effort, be ready to lose games. I don't care. If anything, it makes the game worse for both players because you're not doing your best.

Yeah. that's just absurd. This is game where the models are expensive an take a lot of time to paint. Furthermore, the themes and imagery are huge selling point, so people want to use models that appeal to them on those fronts. 'Doing your best' in the way you meant literally would mean ditching a fully completed Grey Knight army, buying a IG or Eldar army, then spending an year painting them. (And once you're done they have been nerfed, so time to buy an new army again and start over.) And frankly, if you don't care whether your opponent is having fun, then in my book that makes you... well, not a very nice person, to put it politely.

Basically what Crimson said.

If anyone is inflicting Their hobby on anyone else, they’re in the wrong.

I also note with some interest that you excised my comment about ‘if you make it clear you want this game as tournament pracitce’, and it’s socio contractural opposite.

Nobody. And I mean nobody is here to massage the ego of the next gamer. If I do you a gaming favour, the same is expected in return.

Nobody is actually right when it comes to hobby. There’s no point gate keeping, because there’s no gate to keep. But, man, you can be actually wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
List building?

Define that please. Go on. Massive game. Multiple books. Tell me what ‘list building’ should actually entail, as a universal term.

Seriously.

This just seems to be a Mexican standoff. The eternal argument between "play a good list" and "tone your tournament caliber list down for casual play"

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah. that's just absurd. This is game where the models are expensive an take a lot of time to paint. Furthermore, the themes and imagery are huge selling point, so people want to use models that appeal to them on those fronts. 'Doing your best' in the way you meant literally would mean ditching a fully completed Grey Knight army, buying a IG or Eldar army, then spending an year painting them. (And once you're done they have been nerfed, so time to buy an new army again and start over.) And frankly, if you don't care whether your opponent is having fun, then in my book that makes you... well, not a very nice person, to put it politely.

Yes, exactly, models are expensive and take a lot of time to paint. That's why it's absolutely unreasonable to expect the player with the stronger army to buy and paint a bunch of new stuff to build a weaker army, while the player with the weaker army is entitled to keep playing their GK.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, exactly, models are expensive and take a lot of time to paint. That's why it's absolutely unreasonable to expect the player with the stronger army to buy and paint a bunch of new stuff to build a weaker army, while the player with the weaker army is entitled to keep playing their GK.

It indeed would be unreasonable. But most players, especially veterans like you, have larger collections than what they can reasonably field in one game, and thus tuning the power of the list withing that collection is perfectly possible.

 Crimson wrote:
It indeed would be unreasonable. But most players, especially veterans like you, have larger collections than what they can reasonably field in one game, and thus tuning the power of the list withing that collection is perfectly possible.

Most casual/narrative players, especially the kind of person who loves GK enough to invest in them, have lots of painted stuff because they love painting so much and thus should be expected to include some top-tier units in the mix.

(And I actually don't have that much of a collection, and a lot of it is tied up in expensive LoW models that are utter trash in 8th. I'm very limited in what kind of list I can bring.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Most casual/narrative players, especially the kind of person who loves GK enough to invest in them, have lots of painted stuff because they love painting so much and thus should be expected to include some top-tier units in the mix.

Sure, if they have those they obviously could bring them against a stronger faction. But there really isn't anything that would let Grey Knight compete against min-maxed IG or Eldar that would not result jettisoning pretty much all the Grey Knights!

(And I actually don't have that much of a collection, and a lot of it is tied up in expensive LoW models that are utter trash in 8th. I'm very limited in what kind of list I can bring.)

See, you do have proper models to use against Grey Knights, 'utter trash' sounds absolutely perfect!

 Blackie wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I honestly don't see any purpose (or fun) in winning a game without effort. If that happens tone down the list is certainly more fun than avoiding to play at all.

It comes down to this for me. I think on some level, I play games to get beat. Winning a game trivially isn't really any fun, but losing because you intentionally held back isn't as fun as testing your limits. I want to be challenged, and while that can't happen every game, I find the experience I'm actually chasing is one where I give it my all whether that results in coming up short or winning by the skin of my teeth.

Nah, you want to win, not to be challenged.

If you really want to be challenged, and you consider yourself a skilled player, try to win with non-optimized lists. That's a real challenge. I'm not saying field a trash list if your tipycal one is too strong, just tone it down a bit so you can prove yourself and your opponent will have the chance to prove himself as well. List building means nothing in the era of internet. When I started, in the 90s it was a thing, now you have immediate access to tactical discussions and tournament winning lists. There are no skills in list building anymore, unless you completely ignore the internet.

I'm glad you know me so well.

You're right that there's no skill in list building. That's kind of the point. There's definitely fun to be had in winning with a weaker list, but a loss feels padded with the obvious caveat that you started from behind. Taking something strong and losing with it is humbling. It forces you to face your limits and shows you that you still have a ways to go. Nothing quite generates that need to improve in me like taking something really strong, playing it to the best of my ability, and coming up short.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You not having fun playing against an army is honestly NONE of my concern. I'm the last person to use the argument of L2P, but part of the game IS list building. If you don't want to put in the effort, be ready to lose games. I don't care. If anything, it makes the game worse for both players because you're not doing your best.

Yeah. that's just absurd. This is game where the models are expensive an take a lot of time to paint. Furthermore, the themes and imagery are huge selling point, so people want to use models that appeal to them on those fronts. 'Doing your best' in the way you meant literally would mean ditching a fully completed Grey Knight army, buying a IG or Eldar army, then spending an year painting them. (And once you're done they have been nerfed, so time to buy an new army again and start over.) And frankly, if you don't care whether your opponent is having fun, then in my book that makes you... well, not a very nice person, to put it politely.

So you take that time and money to make good models. Simple as that. I don't have any sympathy.

Be thankful this ain't Yugioh or Magic where a card can cost $100 and gets none of your personal flair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah. that's just absurd. This is game where the models are expensive an take a lot of time to paint. Furthermore, the themes and imagery are huge selling point, so people want to use models that appeal to them on those fronts. 'Doing your best' in the way you meant literally would mean ditching a fully completed Grey Knight army, buying a IG or Eldar army, then spending an year painting them. (And once you're done they have been nerfed, so time to buy an new army again and start over.) And frankly, if you don't care whether your opponent is having fun, then in my book that makes you... well, not a very nice person, to put it politely.

Yes, exactly, models are expensive and take a lot of time to paint. That's why it's absolutely unreasonable to expect the player with the stronger army to buy and paint a bunch of new stuff to build a weaker army, while the player with the weaker army is entitled to keep playing their GK.

Peregrine said it in a better manner.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, exactly, models are expensive and take a lot of time to paint. That's why it's absolutely unreasonable to expect the player with the stronger army to buy and paint a bunch of new stuff to build a weaker army, while the player with the weaker army is entitled to keep playing their GK.

It indeed would be unreasonable. But most players, especially veterans like you, have larger collections than what they can reasonably field in one game, and thus tuning the power of the list withing that collection is perfectly possible.

There are also lots of veterans in the refusing to bring a powerful army camp - they have large collections as well... But somehow it's much more likely to be the weak army players wanting accommodation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It indeed would be unreasonable. But most players, especially veterans like you, have larger collections than what they can reasonably field in one game, and thus tuning the power of the list withing that collection is perfectly possible.

Most casual/narrative players, especially the kind of person who loves GK enough to invest in them, have lots of painted stuff because they love painting so much and thus should be expected to include some top-tier units in the mix.

(And I actually don't have that much of a collection, and a lot of it is tied up in expensive LoW models that are utter trash in 8th. I'm very limited in what kind of list I can bring.)

This isn't always true.
You can't assume that because a person really puts work into the fluffy side of their army, that they have a slew of models at home they're just not using.

I have a very focused theme for my Necron army, and I've never bought anything outside that theme. For some people 40k can be an expensive hobby. I've bee trying to save enough for another box Warriors for almost a year, but I'm broke AF. Does that mean I shouldn't play at my FLGS, because in the last year I've only won 1 game out of about 12 due to having a 3rd Ed army?

 Blndmage wrote:

This isn't always true.
You can't assume that because a person really puts work into the fluffy side of their army, that they have a slew of models at home they're just not using.

You also can't assume that a tournament player has piles of spare models - there are plenty that sell models to fund army updates in order to afford those continuous updates. You didn't call out the problem with that assumption?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

There are also lots of veterans in the refusing to bring a powerful army camp - they have large collections as well...

But you're imply a connection between weak army and new player in order to attach some sympathy to your argument.

Not really. I'm just saying that people can work out what results and enjoyable game, rather than writing off 90% of the units. If Perergrine wants to use those 'utter trash' superheavies then perhaps a local Eldar player could humour them and choose some of the less optimal units in their collection in order for them both to have an enjoyable game instead of those beautiful models just staying on the shelf.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

This isn't always true.
You can't assume that because a person really puts work into the fluffy side of their army, that they have a slew of models at home they're just not using.

You also can't assume that a tournament player has piles of spare models - there are plenty that sell models to fund army updates in order to afford those continuous updates. You didn't call out the problem with that assumption?

I'm not saying the tournament player needs new models, they have the option of playing to the level of thier opponent. Try new tactics, new unit organization, if you know your opponent isn't at your level, you can adjust and have a fun game for everyone.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
So what's an acceptable amount of cheese?

Well, as you're such a smart guy and a master list builder, you can probably asses the appropriate amount of cheese to ensure a fair game if you know that the opponent is bringing their Grey Knights.

Here's the problem, all I own for Tau is a 2k competitive list with 3 riptides and a yvahra. I don't have 4-5k of stuff to choose from, I don't have anything to build a list that wouldn't be considered cheese. Am I supposed to just not play? Also, how am I supposed to know what the opponent is playing? I don't usually plan games ahead of time. I'll hang out and paint and shoot the breeze with store employees. Other people will show up looking for a game. I grab my army out of the car and throw it on the table. I rarely know what faction I'll be playing against for the day, let alone knowing their entire list ahead of time to try and limit myself to something that's evenly matched. If we're both bringing 2k points our lists should be evenly matched. 40k doesn't quite work that way, but it's my opponents job to make their list. If they make a subpar list, that's not my fault or my problem. I don't know what people think makes Warhammer somehow different or special from playing chess, racing cars, shooting matches, or anything else with a winner and loser. I don't have to remove my turbo when I meet someone for a race just because their car might not have as much HP, that would be stupid. I don't have to switch from a custom 1911 to a Glock for shooting matches just because some of my opponents might not have a tricked out pistol that shoots a 1/2" group at 50 ft. I'm not expected to tie one hand behind my back if I play a game of 1 v 1 basketball at the rec and I'm 2" taller or a step quicker than the guy across from me. Why am I expected to know my opponent's list and then voluntarily handicap myself down to their level in 40k? The game has points, those exist so that I don't have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics and own 4k of models to make sure I can play a "fair" 2k game.

 Toofast wrote:
Here's the problem, all I own for Tau is a 2k competitive list with 3 riptides and a yvahra. I don't have 4-5k of stuff to choose from, I don't have anything to build a list that wouldn't be considered cheese. Am I supposed to just not play? Also, how am I supposed to know what the opponent is playing?

I assume you at least have some idea of your local meta. But if that all the models you have, then that's that. Though, I'm sure you have some suboptimal units soon enough when the most powerful stuff eventually gets nerfed!

The game has points, those exist so that I don't have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics and own 4k of models to make sure I can play a "fair" 2k game.

Well, we can agree that this is how it should work! But sadly, it doesn't. 2K of Craftworld Eldar is not equal of 2K of Grey Knights.

If, when organizing a pick up game, I said something like

"I'm not a competitive player, I've got a very narrative list, I'm just looking for a fun game, so maybe don't play to crush me turn 1."

Would you run your list softer? Not saying that you can't run your competitive list just that you play with the above in mind. Would you even play against me?

It's hard to have a fair completely-blind pickup game.

Fortunately, metas tend to coallasce. So you should get a feel for what's the appropriate "competitiveness" for your meta.

 Blndmage wrote:

I'm not saying the tournament player needs new models, they have the option of playing to the level of thier opponent. Try new tactics, new unit organization, if you know your opponent isn't at your level, you can adjust and have a fun game for everyone.

Deliberately playing badly isn't fun for lots of people, even those that aren't tournament players.

I'm also not sure how "new tactics" balance out things like hugely more effective firepower.

That's one of those suggestions that really doesn't work in practice. List building, as has been pointed out, is a really big portion of this game.

Bharring wrote:
It's hard to have a fair completely-blind pickup game.

Fortunately, metas tend to coallasce. So you should get a feel for what's the appropriate "competitiveness" for your meta.

What if you have a collection that's weak in your meta, and simply can't afford new models? I mean, I have 3ishK of Necrons, I can't build anything even remotely competitive, barring 500-750 level play. All of my lists can fit into the lore behind my army. My local meta is very full of tourney focused players. I have no other way to play. What do I do?

 Crimson wrote:

The game has points, those exist so that I don't have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics and own 4k of models to make sure I can play a "fair" 2k game.

Well, we can agree that this is how it should work! But sadly, it doesn't. 2K of Craftworld Eldar is not equal of 2K of Grey Knights.

2K of Craftworld Eldar selected at random is not equal to 2K of Craftworld Eldar careful selected for effectiveness.

Pick up games only work where both players are bringing 2K of models selected for effectiveness (everyone can see where all of the factions are at when making these choices...) Then it's reasonably balanced.

This is, of course, the difficulty inherent with pickup games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
I have no other way to play. What do I do?

Play with like-minded friends. These problems all become substantially minimized.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Deliberately playing badly isn't fun for lots of people, even those that aren't tournament players.

True. And that's why rather tone my army down in the listbuilding phase and then play as well as I can once the models are actually placed on the table. You can even do some toning down without switching any models, such as choosing a weaker army trait. Eldar for example are way less obnoxious when they aren't Alaitoc.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I have no other way to play. What do I do?

Play with like-minded friends. These problems all become substantially minimized.

There are none. Also as the only girl 40k player out if the two dozen or so competitive players, I'm not going to some random guy's house alone. Anyone in the area the tried to play more casually basically got told "get better or don't play", not explicitly, but the words are being loudly unspoken. Thus the meta being what it is. All the casual folks basically got scared off.

Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

 Blndmage wrote:

There are none. Also as the only girl 40k player out if the two dozen or so competitive players, I'm not going to some random guy's house alone. Anyone in the area the tried to play more casually basically got told "get better or don't play", not explicitly, but the words are being loudly unspoken. Thus the meta being what it is. All the casual folks basically got scared off.

Yeah, that is really unfortunate. This is exactly the sort of thing I hate to see to happen. I really wish people could be more flexible about how they approach the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

Well, my earlier assessment about the quality of your character seemed to be spot on!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Here's all the models I own, including the half built ones I generally don't feild because they're not done:

2x destroyer lord w/ warscythes
Lord
Cryptek
Cryptek w/ cloak
59 warriors
34 Scarab
4 wraiths
6 Spyders
6 Sentry Pylons w/ heat cannon

That's it.

My best shot is spamming all 6 Pylons with Spyders and a cloaktek, backed by a Scarab farm and warriors.

It gets crushed, unless I play new people, and feel like an ass doing so.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

 Crimson wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

There are none. Also as the only girl 40k player out if the two dozen or so competitive players, I'm not going to some random guy's house alone. Anyone in the area the tried to play more casually basically got told "get better or don't play", not explicitly, but the words are being loudly unspoken. Thus the meta being what it is. All the casual folks basically got scared off.

Yeah, that is really unfortunate. This is exactly the sort of thing I hate to see to happen. I really wish people could be more flexible about how they approach the game.

How is that not a two-way street, though? Is it really reasonable for one fluffy player or a small minority of fluffy players to expect all of the other players in a competitive meta to accommodate them? They have their meta, they have their relationships, they have their places to play etc. and it's something they've all worked out together. Yeah, it would be nice if they were flexible and played outside of their own comfort zone to make other people happy, but why does all of the responsibility and agency lie with them?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

There are none. Also as the only girl 40k player out if the two dozen or so competitive players, I'm not going to some random guy's house alone. Anyone in the area the tried to play more casually basically got told "get better or don't play", not explicitly, but the words are being loudly unspoken. Thus the meta being what it is. All the casual folks basically got scared off.

Yeah, that is really unfortunate. This is exactly the sort of thing I hate to see to happen. I really wish people could be more flexible about how they approach the game.

How is that not a two-way street, though? Is it really reasonable for one fluffy player or a small minority of fluffy players to expect all of the other players in a competitive meta to accommodate them? They have their meta, they have their relationships, they have their places to play etc. and it's something they've all worked out together. Yeah, it would be nice if they were flexible and played outside of their own comfort zone to make other people happy, but why does all of the responsibility and agency lie with them?

All the people who I've contacted that had similar playstyles and we're subtly shunned from playing at the FLGS have dropped the game completely. That's how pervasive the mindset has become.

By only being welcoming to players who have competition in mind, they're ignoring a vast number of players.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.

Actually, outside needing Immortals, you have a solid starting point. Necrons are my primary army since 4th, and I've seen them move up and down tiers significantly. Right now it ain't looking fantastic, but oh well. Regarding Counts-As...
1. Warriors to Immortals depends entirely on a different paintjob
2. Lords ARE Overlords in the same manner the Lieutenant is a Captain. Models are entirely interchangeable
3. Sentry Pylons can be whatever weapon you want as they almost look the same. I don't know what the points are in the new Chapter Approved but I do remember someone saying one of the weapons was worth looking at now.

Otherwise, you're looking at maybe doing a Battalion with an HQ giving the Fearless bubble to the bigger Warrior blobs, with one of the Crypteks having a Veil. Then an Outrider will give an additional CP and use the scarabs and Wraiths in that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.

Actually, outside needing Immortals, you have a solid starting point. Necrons are my primary army since 4th, and I've seen them move up and down tiers significantly. Right now it ain't looking fantastic, but oh well. Regarding Counts-As...
1. Warriors to Immortals depends entirely on a different paintjob
2. Lords ARE Overlords in the same manner the Lieutenant is a Captain. Models are entirely interchangeable
3. Sentry Pylons can be whatever weapon you want as they almost look the same. I don't know what the points are in the new Chapter Approved but I do remember someone saying one of the weapons was worth looking at now.

Otherwise, you're looking at maybe doing a Battalion with an HQ giving the Fearless bubble to the bigger Warrior blobs, with one of the Crypteks having a Veil. Then an Outrider will give an additional CP and use the scarabs and Wraiths in that.

That's what I've been doing, and I get trashed.
The other Necron player basically turn 1 wrecked me with a DDA, Immotek and Tesla Immortal spam, and a Flyer.

 Blndmage wrote:



All the people who I've contacted that had similar playstyles and we're subtly shunned from playing at the FLGS have dropped the game completely. That's how pervasive the mindset has become.

By only being welcoming to players who have competition in mind, they're ignoring a vast number of players.

What is stopping you guys from playing together, though? What if you formed your own gaming group for casual players?

The one thing that I just can't understand in this thread is the notion that competitive-minded players are the ones who should adapt and play in ways that they might find subjectively less fun to accommodate casual players, and it only goes one way. I must be crazy.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Good. You should be pushed to do your best in this game.

How?
Explain how I can do better without any new models. The closest I get a stupidly heavy skew list, which I could run, but probably would still lose, and make me look like an ass for bringing it.

Unless you're doing strictly by kit, anything as Counts-As is terrifically easy.

Which army you play?

Necrons
Edited my last post with what I have.

Actually, outside needing Immortals, you have a solid starting point. Necrons are my primary army since 4th, and I've seen them move up and down tiers significantly. Right now it ain't looking fantastic, but oh well. Regarding Counts-As...
1. Warriors to Immortals depends entirely on a different paintjob
2. Lords ARE Overlords in the same manner the Lieutenant is a Captain. Models are entirely interchangeable
3. Sentry Pylons can be whatever weapon you want as they almost look the same. I don't know what the points are in the new Chapter Approved but I do remember someone saying one of the weapons was worth looking at now.

Otherwise, you're looking at maybe doing a Battalion with an HQ giving the Fearless bubble to the bigger Warrior blobs, with one of the Crypteks having a Veil. Then an Outrider will give an additional CP and use the scarabs and Wraiths in that.

That's what I've been doing, and I get trashed.
The other Necron player basically turn 1 wrecked me with a DDA, Immotek and Tesla Immortal spam, and a Flyer.

Well the Flyers suck right now, so that's really just bad luck on that end.

If I have the specifications of the list I can tell you what to do. I'm working on a list utilizing the Stormlord myself.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:



All the people who I've contacted that had similar playstyles and we're subtly shunned from playing at the FLGS have dropped the game completely. That's how pervasive the mindset has become.

By only being welcoming to players who have competition in mind, they're ignoring a vast number of players.

What is stopping you guys from playing together, though? What if you formed your own gaming group for casual players?

The one thing that I just can't understand in this thread is the notion that competitive-minded players are the ones who should adapt and play in ways that they might find subjectively less fun to accommodate casual players, and it only goes one way. I must be crazy.

The 40k community can be toxic.
My local meta is subtly toxic.
People who left were so turned off the game that they sold/got rid of their armies.
The local FLGS sees no issue as they get sales, and it's subtle gak.

 Luciferian wrote:

The one thing that I just can't understand in this thread is the notion that competitive-minded players are the ones who should adapt and play in ways that they might find subjectively less fun to accommodate casual players, and it only goes one way. I must be crazy.

It is just that it is usually easier to tune down a list than to tune it up. And with some armies there is an absolute limit how much they can be tuned up; the best possible GK list will be weaker than a mediocre Eldar list, and I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect people to write off entire factions. But can someone explain to me how bringing a suboptimal list makes the game less fun for the competitive player, assuming that the opponent does the same? I totally understand how not actually playing as well as you could (i.e. making tactical mistakes on purpose) would be not fun, I wouldn't want to do that either. But why cant you try to play competitively with a 'bad' list? What's unfun in that? I just don't get it...

I always try and make armies I like, at least, around as much of a framework as I can.

For example, before the Gladius was even a thing, I aimed for fluffy Battle and half Battle Companies. Sure, I had some leeway as to if I took Bikes or Assault Marines (and later Centurions), or if I took Devastators or Devastator Centurions, but the framework was there, and no matter if all of the Devastator options were trash - I still wanted to take them. Did certain weapons that were powerful end up in my lists? Yeah, but that was more of a "you look good with this, and this is my rationalization behind it". I never went back and made sweeping changes across my armies when and if the meta changed. It was an investment, I guess. The meta changes, but YOUR army, built for your whims, will always be yours.

For me, this is a massive perk of building your armies as you like them (if the way you like them has no bearing on the competitive strength of it). Your army will always look how you want, it will always have the units you think are appealing, and that won't change. Being able to take the options you like, regardless of how powerful they are at that moment, is more important to me personally.

 Blndmage wrote:

The 40k community can be toxic.
My local meta is subtly toxic.
People who left were so turned off the game that they sold/got rid of their armies.
The local FLGS sees no issue as they get sales, and it's subtle gak.

I don't understand what "subtly toxic" means. Are they rude? Do they have a demonstrable pattern of abusive behavior? Do they use epithets? I don't think that not playing the game the way you think it should be played really constitutes toxic behavior.

If you have a pool of players who are not having fun playing in the local competitive meta, who have a means of contacting each other and a place to play, how did it not occur to any of them to just play with each other instead of giving up altogether? Did they expect the FLGS to force the competitive players to play with them?

What do you see when you see your army? The way I look at it, Casual/narrative players like myself see - or are working to make it - a story, with characters and plot arcs and motivations and adventures. Why else would I kit-bash my warlord, give him a name/backstory, and do the same for his myriad of lieutenants? A more competitive player, I think, sees a sporting tool: An exercise in their prowess and tactical acuity. Neither of these are wrong, I think, but were we have the argument appears to be when the casual player like me can't for the life of them see why the competitive player is playing a foot-ball game in the middle of our great american epic.

In all seriousness, I get the whole "Being a good sport and playing the game your buddy wants to play - even if you don't.". Most of my disagreement from competitive players lie in the few comments I read where it was implied that I'm "doing it wrong.".

 Crimson wrote:

It is just that it is usually easier to tune down a list than to tune it up. And with some armies there is an absolute limit how much they can be tuned up; the best possible GK list will be weaker than a mediocre Eldar list, and I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect people to write off entire factions. But can someone explain to me how bringing a suboptimal list makes the game less fun for the competitive player, assuming that the opponent does the same? I totally understand how not actually playing as well as you could (i.e. making tactical mistakes on purpose) would be not fun, I wouldn't want to do that either. But why cant you try to play competitively with a 'bad' list? What's unfun in that? I just don't get it...

It's not up to you or I to decide what constitutes "fun" for anyone else. If someone finds it unfun to play with a sub-optimal list, who is anyone else to tell them they're wrong, let alone "toxic"? If they're not actively being jerks to people how is that wrong?

 Luciferian wrote:

It's not up to you or I to decide what constitutes "fun" for anyone else.

No, but it was an honest question. I don't just get it, please explain.

 Lazzamore wrote:
What do you see when you see your army? The way I look at it, Casual/narrative players like myself see - or are working to make it - a story, with characters and plot arcs and motivations and adventures. Why else would I kit-bash my warlord, give him a name/backstory, and do the same for his myriad of lieutenants? A more competitive player, I think, sees a sporting tool: An exercise in their prowess and tactical acuity. Neither of these are wrong, I think, but were we have the argument appears to be when the casual player like me can't for the life of them see why the competitive player is playing a foot-ball game in the middle of our great american epic.

In all seriousness, I get the whole "Being a good sport and playing the game your buddy wants to play - even if you don't.". Most of my disagreement from competitive players lie in the few comments I read where it was implied that I'm "doing it wrong.".

Agreed. I don't have any issue with people who want to play to showcase their tactical skill and attempt to "beat" the game, or be beaten by a more powerful opponent. I could play a game like that, but it's certainly not something I'd ever do on a regular basis.

Any issue I've had with competitive players, or anyone really, is devaluing the different ways because can enjoy the game. All ways of playing and enjoying the hobby are valid, just not to everyone. Anyone who says "X is invalid" is right out for me.

Bharring wrote:
It's hard to have a fair completely-blind pickup game.

Fortunately, metas tend to coallasce. So you should get a feel for what's the appropriate "competitiveness" for your meta.

It's really not if both players build their list with the goal of winning games. The only time it's hard to have a fair pickup game is if someone is going in with a purely fluff-based, subpar list and expecting other people to handicap themselves when that's not always going to be an option.

The Castellan statline really stimulates the power gamer in me. But man I cannot stand the way that thing looks. Even power gamers gotta draw the line somewhere.

One thing that's been working reasonably well at my games at the store is just asking a simple "competitive or no?" before bringing our dudes in. If they answer yes, it seems to be generally agreed that both parties can expect any flavor of maximum cheese available in the meta. If they answer no, we usually tend to share some, if not all of our lists before the day of the match. I have still run into issues where my weakest possible lists end up being too points efficient due to not having a lot of inefficient models in my collection (read: marines) but in general I've found this has been working pretty well. If someone tells me straight up that they play more casual games and field mostly marines, I will tone down as much as my collection allows and then send them my list in advance to make sure they're comfortable playing against it.

Sometimes there will be unfair games no matter what list you bring due to both players not having enough models to meet in the middle. That's pretty much unavoidable in a game like 40k.

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

It's not up to you or I to decide what constitutes "fun" for anyone else.

No, but it was an honest question. I don't just get it, please explain.

It might put a bad taste in their mouth to intentionally handicap themselves. They might find the list building itself to be the most fun part of the game. It doesn't really matter why. Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

I guess my point is that poor, disabled, and brand new gamers have a right to play the game.

You shouldn't feel obligated to chase the tournament meta when you never play in tournaments. Having a meta where everyone is always honing thier list for tournaments isn't fun when you can't afford said tournaments.

Eg. After the last FAQ, I posted on the FLGS Facebook group (we all use it to arrange games, etc) and asked about a more casual tournament, 1500 points, maybe trying a faction lock on CP, maybe run it for charity. Long story short, folks wound up running a 750 doubles thing with a $20 entry fee, when a part of my original idea was making a tournament that's accessable to thoes that might not be able to pay the normal $10 competitive tournament fee.

TLDR: lots of 40k players are quite privileged, and would rather put on a big event that makes them look good than run something with a more inclusive attitude.

You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

'Should...' I don't know it they 'should', I really just don't understand why it is so difficult. this seems to be this American misguided individualism thing: 'You can't tell me what to do!' Well, yeah, I can't. I just think the community works better and grows if people try to be more accommodating. If you don't want to do that, then you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

Yeah. Except rules change, and pretty rapidly too these days. Once the thing that was good when you bought it is built and painted it might have already been nerfed. Or perhaps some people might just want to use models and factions that happen to have bad rules because they like how they look or like their themes.

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

'Should...' I don't know it they 'should', I really just don't understand why it is so difficult. this seems to be this American misguided individualism thing: 'You can't tell me what to do!' Well, yeah, I can't. I just think the community works better and grows if people try to be more accommodating. If you don't want to do that, then you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

Yeah. Except rules change, and pretty rapidly too these days. Once the thing that was good when you bought it is built and painted it might have already been nerfed. Or perhaps some people might just want to use models and factions that happen to have bad rules because they like how they look or like their themes.

Yeah that. The rules will never, ever influence my purchases. I play R&H because the theme and the models are cool, not because the rules are good (mostly cause they're gak.)

 Blndmage wrote:
I guess my point is that poor, disabled, and brand new gamers have a right to play the game.

You shouldn't feel obligated to chase the tournament meta when you never play in tournaments. Having a meta where everyone is always honing thier list for tournaments isn't fun when you can't afford said tournaments.

Eg. After the last FAQ, I posted on the FLGS Facebook group (we all use it to arrange games, etc) and asked about a more casual tournament, 1500 points, maybe trying a faction lock on CP, maybe run it for charity. Long story short, folks wound up running a 750 doubles thing with a $20 entry fee, when a part of my original idea was making a tournament that's accessable to thoes that might not be able to pay the normal $10 competitive tournament fee.

TLDR: lots of 40k players are quite privileged, and would rather put on a big event that makes them look good than run something with a more inclusive attitude.

This is 40k, not the USSR. 40k is a luxury, not a human right. While it's admirable to want to put on an event for less advantaged players, your local competitive meta doesn't owe it to you to participate in your event, play casual games with you, or to stop playing the way they like to.

If you want to put on a charity 40k event, I think that's a great idea, but that's on you.

Congratulations, you've made me wish I'd never started this thread....

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, if they're not actively being a jerk why should they be expected to compromise their "fun"?

'Should...' I don't know it they 'should', I really just don't understand why it is so difficult. this seems to be this American misguided individualism thing: 'You can't tell me what to do!' Well, yeah, I can't. I just think the community works better and grows if people try to be more accommodating. If you don't want to do that, then you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You should always put research into a product before buying it. For example, I refused to order ANY Aggressors until I could find out if those dangly things from their crotch could be removed or not attached in general. I looked at what bitz I might want from the Deathwatch Vets, and I ordered the appropriate amount of boxes (+1).

That's just for modeling too. Think about how much I go into rules as well.

Yeah. Except rules change, and pretty rapidly too these days. Once the thing that was good when you bought it is built and painted it might have already been nerfed. Or perhaps some people might just want to use models and factions that happen to have bad rules because they like how they look or like their themes.

I find rules will mostly be a universal trend. On top of that, I create a LOT of Counts As due to me hating the design of most of the GW characters. In fact, every single character I got is converted and can be representative of quite a few special characters or HQ builds.