Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SHUPPET wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.

+1 and quoted for truth.

List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).

 Galorian wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.

+1 and quoted for truth.

List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).

Thirded. That's why I keep asking for a definition of WAAC because not everyone has the same idea of what it is. (I think its a mindset, but that's just me.)

 Eldarain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's SC2?

Starcraft 2 I believe.

Indeed. I can't think of a more provably balanced game tbh. Except life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

Your definition of WAAC will change once someone accuses you of it only because you beat them. I played in a local RT (W-1 L-2) and my last game was a hideous curb stomping of my opponent. It was over on turn two. Never once had my dice and army worked so well together, nor have they since. It was the only time I have ever played this guy, so he doesn't know me. All he knew was it was the worst game of his life. So it is not surprising there is a Warseer thread calling me all manner of vile things. The only time in my life I've been called a WAAC player.

His definition of WAAC will not change, because it's basically anyone who builds a list that he doesn't know how to beat.

He doesn't even have a definition for his "WAAC list", which by the way does not imply a WAAC player, and thus a TFG as he likes to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.

I think this is the first time I feel like upvoting you... but then I didn't get to downvote you the other times so I'll pass . mwahahaha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galorian wrote:

List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).

Yeah, that's why I don't really try to convert a JetCouncil tbh... I could try one without baron though.
I also tend to discuss and avoid allies because I don't think GW thought that one through.
Either way, once you build a list within the parameters set by both players, anything goes and your choice not to bring a C'tan or mine not to bring a SeerStar is really just that: a choice made to avoid a boring game.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.

+1 and quoted for truth.

List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).

Thirded. That's why I keep asking for a definition of WAAC because not everyone has the same idea of what it is. (I think its a mindset, but that's just me.)

What is so difficult to understand on "Win At All Cost" lists? Lists that use loopholes in the rules and extreme unfluffy set ups, Use a minimum of troop choices to get the maximum overkill stuff on the table. Now with the unbound rules you will some strange lists with very unfluffy combinations.

I personally are a Fluff nerd and i try to make my army according the fluff, but then again i play for fun and i know my lists are not competitive in a tournament environment.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

What is so difficult to understand on "Win At All Cost" lists? Lists that use loopholes in the rules and extreme unfluffy set ups, Use a minimum of troop choices to get the maximum overkill stuff on the table. Now with the unbound rules you will some strange lists with very unfluffy combinations.

I personally are a Fluff nerd and i try to make my army according the fluff, but then again i play for fun and i know my lists are not competitive in a tournament environment.

So the barrier is set at "loopholes in the rules" and "extreme unfluffy".

Could you give us an example of "loophole" and "extreme unfluff" ?

It's good to know that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty though.

Would you consider Tau commander joining a Riptide is a loophole? With the specified ruling in 7th, I can't help but wonder if Tau Commander joining the Riptide was not what was initially intended in 6th.

morgoth wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

What is so difficult to understand on "Win At All Cost" lists? Lists that use loopholes in the rules and extreme unfluffy set ups, Use a minimum of troop choices to get the maximum overkill stuff on the table. Now with the unbound rules you will some strange lists with very unfluffy combinations.

I personally are a Fluff nerd and i try to make my army according the fluff, but then again i play for fun and i know my lists are not competitive in a tournament environment.

So the barrier is set at "loopholes in the rules" and "extreme unfluffy".

Could you give us an example of "loophole" and "extreme unfluff" ?

It's good to know that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty though.

Did you read the article? the terminator wolfguard in terminator Armour squad using 3 assault cannon and using typhoon launchers is a loophole.
An unfluffy army would be using Khorne demons and slaneesh demons in one army that is a nono in the fluff.

You should work on your reading comprehension, where did i say ; "that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and that Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty"?
I said "i personally" i didn't generalize like you did. I also didn't demonize the WAAC or FluFF player.

Tyranids have no army composition per the fluff. They adapt their composition to the needs of the hive mind to crush their opposition.

So when I bring a Nids army with 4 Dakka Flyrants, 2 Harpies, 2 Crones, and Objective Secured Gargoyles (that respawn) along with Rippers, you shouldn't complain because that's fluffy per how Nids fight. Blot out the sun...

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Did you read the article? the terminator wolfguard in terminator Armour squad using 3 assault cannon and using typhoon launchers is a loophole.
An unfluffy army would be using Khorne demons and slaneesh demons in one army that is a nono in the fluff.

You should work on your reading comprehension, where did i say ; "that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and that Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty"?
I said "i personally" i didn't generalize like you did. I also didn't demonize the WAAC or FluFF player.

I mistakenly thought you were the guy who did my mistake.

I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated.

I'd like another one that's unfluffy, so I better understand your definition of WAAC.

Most chaos players will nurgle some and khorne others, is the mark enough to be unfluffy ? do the chaos gods never roll together ?

Why should there be a zillion troops in an army ? Especially if that makes the army weaker ? How fluffy is it to expect some SM commander to decide to bring the wrong units just for the heck of it ?

morgoth wrote:
I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated.

I think this might be a little difficult. Until an FAQ comes out or a new Edition which fixes the loophole, it will always be debatable if it ever was a loophole or something GW intended.

Have you seen the 14 page "Can an Overlord on CCB join units?" thread in YMDC?

Edited for my inability to use quote tags properly

The ScreamerStar was probly a loophole, seemed very unintentional. I don't think it affects whether or not the player behind it is "TFG" (I'd much rather play vs a friendly jovial ScreamerStar, than a negative and snappy Space Wolves cavalry player), but it's definitely not the friendliest list. Probably fits the bill for WAAC, as does spamming badly balanced models to get the biggest balance advantage you can squeeze in your list, eg Riptides n Wave Serpents tbqh.

Now don't get me wrong, even though it's not for me I have nothing against this style of play and can fully understand why people want to build the roughest, toughest army they can, everyone (except Sisters ) get their turn at the top of the ladder, and I actually relish such games as a chance to test my little homemade army builds against the very top tier army compositions possible. WAAC is not a bad thing. It just doesn't balance that well against a fluffy list, it's no more a fault of either one player than the other, blame GW for writing a wildly unbalanced rule set for your "fluffy" models.

 SHUPPET wrote:
The ScreamerStar was probly a loophole, seemed very unintentional. I don't think it affects whether or not the player behind it is "TFG" (I'd much rather play vs a friendly jovial ScreamerStar, than a negative and snappy Space Wolves cavalry player), but it's definitely not the friendliest list. Probably fits the bill for WAAC, as does spamming badly balanced models to get the biggest balance advantage you can squeeze in your list, eg Riptides n Wave Serpents tbqh.

Now don't get me wrong, even though it's not for me I have nothing against this style of play and can fully understand why people want to build the roughest, toughest army they can, everyone (except Sisters ) get their turn at the top of the ladder, and I actually relish such games as a chance to test my little homemade army builds against the very top tier army compositions possible. WAAC is not a bad thing. It just doesn't balance that well against a fluffy list, it's no more a fault of either one player than the other, blame GW for writing a wildly unbalanced rule set for your "fluffy" models.

I think that rerollable 2++ in general was a mistake in the rules design, but i doesn't come across as a loophole.
I'm not familiar with the ScreamerStar, but it may be another case of "we didn't think of that".
I still think you should reconsider your position on the WS, no matter how you look at it it's really not in the top 10 units of WH40K or even top 3 Eldar.

I think that WAAC is more than just about a list though, as there aren't many costs to win the list building competition

Well puritan inquisitors that can now summon demons is unfluffy In my book.

Now with the unbound you can throw together some "interesting" combinations.

A Khorne army with lots of sorcerers is unfluffy.

Andan example of a Loophole army is difficult for me because i don't make army lists like that, my friend was better like that, using an almost completely drone army that constantly moved in and out of shooting range.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well puritan inquisitors that can now summon demons is unfluffy In my book.

Now with the unbound you can throw together some "interesting" combinations.

A Khorne army with lots of sorcerers is unfluffy.

Andan example of a Loophole army is difficult for me because i don't make army lists like that, my friend was better like that, using an almost completely drone army that constantly moved in and out of shooting range.

WS spam, Daemon summoning spamming Chaos Daemon lists and Cron-air are all fluffy "WAAC" army lists however.

 Galorian wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well puritan inquisitors that can now summon demons is unfluffy In my book.

Now with the unbound you can throw together some "interesting" combinations.

A Khorne army with lots of sorcerers is unfluffy.

Andan example of a Loophole army is difficult for me because i don't make army lists like that, my friend was better like that, using an almost completely drone army that constantly moved in and out of shooting range.

WS spam, Daemon summoning spamming Chaos Daemon lists and Cron-air are all fluffy "WAAC" army lists however.

Which does sound perverted by the way... Hello fluff-lover, you can't dodge this bullet . mwahhahahahaaaa. whatever.

5th ed leaf blower was fluffy too. IG army with inquisitor runing the show. 100% fluff in BL books and games. It is even said in coteaz fluff that he

leads armies on his own.


I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated

The DA FAQ lost the part about what stuff the dakka banner buffs. So it is back to buffing everything that is under the bolter section in the BRB. pistols, storm bolters etc are suddenly back to their 2/4 salvo glory. .

Makumba wrote:
5th ed leaf blower was fluffy too. IG army with inquisitor runing the show. 100% fluff in BL books and games. It is even said in coteaz fluff that he

leads armies on his own.


I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated

The DA FAQ lost the part about what stuff the dakka banner buffs. So it is back to buffing everything that is under the bolter section in the BRB. pistols, storm bolters etc are suddenly back to their 2/4 salvo glory. .

Do you mean to say that FAQ was lost because a new book was released without changing that ? Is it unintentional ?

morgoth wrote:

Makumba wrote:
5th ed leaf blower was fluffy too. IG army with inquisitor runing the show. 100% fluff in BL books and games. It is even said in coteaz fluff that he

leads armies on his own.


I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated

The DA FAQ lost the part about what stuff the dakka banner buffs. So it is back to buffing everything that is under the bolter section in the BRB. pistols, storm bolters etc are suddenly back to their 2/4 salvo glory. .

Do you mean to say that FAQ was lost because a new book was released without changing that ? Is it unintentional ?

Some people are saying that just because previous clarifications from the old FAQs have been removed, the rules somehow revert back to their pre-FAQed state.

To my mind, this is the wrong way of looking at it; the FAQs were clarifications, not changes to the rules, so it's obvious that's the way the rules were intended to work from the start. So saying that because the clarification can't be found online, things suddenly revert, is just a bit odd really.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
If my opponent is not having fun, I'm not having fun.

If my opponent is not having fun solely because he is being tabled, that's his problem not mine especialy if I'm ok to be around. Also doesn't it make him kind a WAAC douche that gets moody because of having a bad match of a toy soldiers game?

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.

So, we should play rather delicately, taking good attention of our opponents body language and face expressions and adjust our level of ingame aggression accordingly and rather avoid that nasty, jock worthy tabling. Good point, I get it now.

Or maybe rather get a grip? Seriously my wife loves romances, fears spiders and is in general womanly to 11 and still has thickier skin when it comes to games than the casual laid back forge the narrative brigade here. Quit being special delicate flowers people.

Also there is nothing worse than a whiny HAAC TFG refusing games left and right with his smug OP this OP that commentary. I would love to take you all into a Antonov 225 and drop at GW HQ, they would fix the game in no time.

Not exactly directed at you Rune just in general.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
If my opponent is not having fun, I'm not having fun.

If my opponent is not having fun solely because he is being tabled, that's his problem not mine especialy if I'm ok to be around. Also doesn't it make him kind a WAAC douche that gets moody because of having a bad match of a toy soldiers game?

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.

So, we should play rather delicately, taking good attention of our opponents body language and face expressions and adjust our level of ingame aggression accordingly and rather avoid that nasty, jock worthy tabling. Good point, I get it now.

You're taking it to extremes, but to be honest, yes. If my opponent really was in a bad way game-wise on T3 or before, if I'd had really good luck or outplayed him and he wasn't enjoying himself, I'd go as far as to let him have a unit back to even it up, or even introduce a new objective in his favour, something like that. The chief job of any player in a game like this, even in tournaments, is to make sure the guy across the table is having a good time.

I'm not saying play to lose, but if it's obvious your opponent isn't enjoying himself, then in my opinion, it's your responsibility to try and make them have a more enjoyable game. Not everyone, and in fact a minority, I'd guess, will react badly to losing, but for the few that do, it's decent to throw them a chance; a game that's a foregone conclusion is no fun for anyone in the end.

If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )

 Yonan wrote:
If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )

That does work, and is something I've done before, but when time is limited, it's easier I find to just give them some reinforcements rather than going through the motions of deployment and all that malarkey again. In general, I'll start again if it's decided by Turn 2, but after that, it's less hassle just to keep going.

With the option for an unbound army I will be able to field the sentinel regement i've always wanted to do, 20 odd armoured sentinels at 1500pts running around will confuse some players and be funny as hell to play

 Yonan wrote:
If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )

I like the concept of handicap but I'm afraid it could be taken as an insult...

Is Starcraft a GW game?

Starcraft is a Blizzard game. There is a link though - Blizzard also makes Warcraft, which was originally made as a Warhammer game but things turned sour and rather than waste the game, they changed some things and it became Warcraft instead of Warhammer. A while later they also created Starcraft which of course can draw imperium > terran, tyranid > zerg and protoss > eldar comparisons, but then they're generic sci-fi concepts anyway.

morgoth wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )

I like the concept of handicap but I'm afraid it could be taken as an insult...

Really? It's a common thing in pretty much any competitive game. There are better players and worse players, handicaps allow them to play together with a similar chance of winning.

 Yonan wrote:
A while later they also created Starcraft which of course can draw imperium > terran, tyranid > zerg and protoss > eldar comparisons, but then they're generic sci-fi concepts anyway.

They are also massively dissimilar races...

Even the Zerg and Nids have little in common beyond the basic concept of being Hive minded swarms with evolutionary schticks.

They both have Broodlords tho

Yeah well, the point about Starcraft is that it's the most competitive RTS ever, and although SC:BW was never really balanced, the Korean scene gave us a good idea of what balance (and insane skill) means.

Starcraft 2 has that DNA and is probably going to be the most balanced strategy game ever (it has been pretty balanced between meta shifts actually) and is thus an ideal the WH40K rules could start moving towards.

Starcraft has no lore to follow so it is easy to have some balance. But if I remember correctly from my warcraft tft days they where on patch 100+ so not that well balanced if they still didn't get it right after 99 trys.