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.

Are we saying now that there aren't any power builds so comp just isn't needed?

That can't be FACTE.

When 4e Eldar Holofield Falcons came out, it was so obviously hard to kill them that the resentment overspilled onto Tau skimmers which had been sitting quietly in the second rank for two years. Mathematical proof was subsumed in a general wave of bile and vitriol.

Chaos lists have been placing high or winning multiple tournaments for several years over two editions. To explain this, you have to assume that good players only play Chaos, or there is something special about the codex. (Or both, given that really competitive players are likely to select the best codex -- which merely proves the first point.)

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, I like the tiering, points, and VP adjustment to correct for the choice of army (strong / average / weak).

I think that's actually the worse part of the whole system. (Personally, I don't believe in tiers, but I understand why some adhere to the idea that some codices are stronger/weaker than others).

Let's look at Daemonhunters. Overall, a "weak" army. PAGKs cost 275 pts for one troop selection of 10 MEQs, your ranged anti-tank is minimal and reserved primarily for overcosted Walker platforms, and I4 with no frag grenades makes you vulnerable to attrition from shooting and assault.

By the 'TIER' system, Daemonhunters are probably close to dead last and I'd get a healthy handicap against just about anybody I played against.

Except that I show up with Stelek's 6+ Land Raider power house and shoot dead everything I come across that can't handle AV14 in ridiculous quantities. And I get bonus points because the units that I didn't take aren't very good.

And yes, I know what you're going to say next, tiers just become a part of the overall system and other "comp guidelines" will nullify the remainder of the cheese. But the thing is, at this point you've got a "comp" structure that's so rigid and monolithic that everybody either ignores it and it's a moot point, or the TOs may as well make a pre-set battlebox force that they've "Okayed" for each codex and everybody just picks one and throws down in a "true" display of hobbyship.

SmoovKriminal wrote:
Gorgon, look at the first quote. NOB BIKERSE ARE NOT THAT HARD TO KILL. The WAC really doesn't make them that hard to kill, they have the same weaknesses as ever and still die hard to templates, ordnance, meltas, plasmas, lascannons, krak missiles, venom cannons, barbed stranglers, particle whip, heavy gauss, tyrants (implant attack anyone?), carnifex, wraithlords, firedragons, bright/darklances, etc etc etc etc. You just aren't prepared for them, and there have been many competitive players in this topic alone that express that nob bikers just aren't that hard to take down when you are prepared for them as well as other top tier lists. They catch newbs by surprise and certain poor army builds by surprise too. I for one think that the current WAC rules, nobs included, are FAR superior than mixed armor or mixed toughness. They sucked ass and were just a lazy, unrealistic way of streamlining the game for chillens.

I was prepared and ready for them, and I faced just a few of them in my first game at the Baltimore GT with 3 Exorcists and I could not come close to killing them.

You are going to kill them with shooting? Turbo boosting around they get a 3+ cover save. How do you get through that?

Then on top of that, any single wounds that are strength 8 or 9 (which most will be) gets applied to the warboss riding with them so even if he does fail his cover save, he just takes a single wound.

Anything that can kill them in assault will be killed by the Nobs, or by the 3-4 power klaws in the unit.

You really need to play against it to appreciate its synergy and how strong it is.

JohnDD wrote:Excuse me, but where did I say that WAAC was "somehow morally deficient"?

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's obvious that comp is not dead based on the feedback in this thread. There are two sides of the coin:

Power gamers with WAAC armies that don't want to be penislized at tournies

Weak players that want to be able to ding the top players

G

Please do not use the term WAAC (Win At All Costs) to refer to optimized lists that give you the best chance at winning. It implies that the player cares nothing for fun and only cares about winning. That they would do anything to win. Its impolite. Stop it.

I play the best list I can from a given Codex, I try very hard to win. I have fun in the process. I am a great sportsman. I have fun even if I lose as long as the opponent is likewise a good sportsman with a good attitude.

sourclams wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, I like the tiering, points, and VP adjustment to correct for the choice of army (strong / average / weak).

I think that's actually the worse part of the whole system.

Let's look at Daemonhunters. Overall, a "weak" army. PAGKs cost 275 pts

Except that I show up with Stelek's 6+ Land Raider power house and shoot dead everything I come across that can't handle AV14 in ridiculous quantities.

And yes, I know what you're going to say next, tiers just become a part of the overall system and other "comp guidelines" will nullify the remainder of the cheese.

The tiering is interesting because I haven't seen people modify VPs / BPs directly like that as part of a tournament.

Daemonhunters can also take IST Troops for as little as 50 pts... *Pure* GK are a weak army, but that's a side effect of only having a grand total of 5 expensive units to pick from. DH includes all of the Inq. options, along with SM/IG Allies, so I'd say the flexibility alone guarantees DH and WH to be average, whereas Orks and Chaos are probably strong.

You are completely correct, that, if you carried the ETC system over to 40k, 6 Land Raiders would be declared illegal or restricted in some way.

Though, to be honest, I think that WFB has very different balance issues / problems compared to 40k (i.e. I think 40k is less unbalanced on a per-list basis), also a lot of what they did is probably overkill and therefore unnecessary to transfer for 40k.

It's very interesting, though.

kadun wrote:
Please do not use the term WAAC (Win At All Costs) to refer to optimized lists that give you the best chance at winning. It implies that the player cares nothing for fun and only cares about winning. That they would do anything to win. Its impolite. Stop it.

I play the best list I can from a given Codex, I try very hard to win. I have fun in the process. I am a great sportsman. I have fun even if I lose as long as the opponent is likewise a good sportsman with a good attitude.

I feel the same way :(

kadun wrote:

JohnDD wrote:Excuse me, but where did I say that WAAC was "somehow morally deficient"?

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's obvious that comp is not dead based on the feedback in this thread. There are two sides of the coin:

Power gamers with WAAC armies that don't want to be penislized at tournies

Weak players that want to be able to ding the top players

G

Please do not use the term WAAC (Win At All Costs) to refer to optimized lists that give you the best chance at winning. It implies that the player cares nothing for fun and only cares about winning. That they would do anything to win. Its impolite. Stop it.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

kadun wrote:Please do not use the term WAAC (Win At All Costs) to refer to optimized lists that give you the best chance at winning. It implies that the player cares nothing for fun and only cares about winning. That they would do anything to win. Its impolite. Stop it.

I play the best list I can from a given Codex, I try very hard to win. I have fun in the process. I am a great sportsman. I have fun even if I lose as long as the opponent is likewise a good sportsman with a good attitude.

A few questions:
- Is there something that is inaccurate about applying the "WAAC" label to a maximally-optimized list?
- If the list is constructed this way, isn't it constructed only for winning, taking anything to win?
- If it is indeed the "best list" for trying to win, then how is that not a WAAC list?

Nowhere did I say, or imply, that the player was a bad sport or un-fun. Hell, I fielded *lots* of WAAC lists during 3E. And I'm not ashamed to admit this in the least. These were WAAC lists, hands down, designed purely for winning (which they did very well).

So I have to ask you to be a little less sensitive, and recognize that I only describe what you take to the table (WAAC), not how you play it (fun, sporting).

But if you don't like "WAAC" as the descriptor, do you have a better 4-letter word to use that conveys meaning as accurately?
___

I'll accept a TLA in lieu of "WAAC" as well. But there's no way I'm typing "maximally-optimized" every time.

The Green Git wrote:

kadun wrote:

JohnDD wrote:Excuse me, but where did I say that WAAC was "somehow morally deficient"?

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's obvious that comp is not dead based on the feedback in this thread. There are two sides of the coin:

Power gamers with WAAC armies that don't want to be penislized at tournies

Weak players that want to be able to ding the top players

G

Please do not use the term WAAC (Win At All Costs) to refer to optimized lists that give you the best chance at winning. It implies that the player cares nothing for fun and only cares about winning. That they would do anything to win. Its impolite. Stop it.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

How exactly is that hypocritical? I think complaining against tooled up armies is hypocritical, if you're concerned about losing to those tooled up armies.

*Lurk Mode - Off*

The Green Git wrote:Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

I don't think that means what you think it means.



*Lurk Mode - On*

JohnHwangDD wrote:

kadun wrote:Please do not use the term WAAC (Win At All Costs) to refer to optimized lists that give you the best chance at winning. It implies that the player cares nothing for fun and only cares about winning. That they would do anything to win. Its impolite. Stop it.

I play the best list I can from a given Codex, I try very hard to win. I have fun in the process. I am a great sportsman. I have fun even if I lose as long as the opponent is likewise a good sportsman with a good attitude.

A few questions:
- Is there something that is inaccurate about applying the "WAAC" label to a maximally-optimized list?
- If the list is constructed this way, isn't it constructed only for winning, taking anything to win?
- If it is indeed the "best list" for trying to win, then how is that not a WAAC list?

Nowhere did I say, or imply, that the player was a bad sport or un-fun. Hell, I fielded *lots* of WAAC lists during 3E. And I'm not ashamed to admit this in the least. These were WAAC lists, hands down, designed purely for winning (which they did very well).

So I have to ask you to be a little less sensitive, and recognize that I only describe what you take to the table (WAAC), not how you play it (fun, sporting).

But if you don't like "WAAC" as the descriptor, do you have a better 4-letter word to use that conveys meaning as accurately?
___

I'll accept a TLA in lieu of "WAAC" as well. But there's no way I'm typing "maximally-optimized" every time.

To "win at all costs" suggests far more than simply "bringing the best list you can construct." It carries connotations of poor sportsmanship, a hint of perfidious rules manipulation, and a whiff of abuse of the other player's inferior knowledge of some specific scenarios.

In short, I read it as a perjorative. It is, in fact, a four-letter word.

If you want a four-letter descriptor, why is "hard" insufficient? If that's inadequate, why NOT type out "maximally-optimized?" The cost to type & transmit the extra letters doesn't come to a whole lot.

well said Janthkin

A well optimized list does =/= a WAAC attitude

Maybe because WAAC is a negative while hard in the sense of hard as nails is a positive?

He obviously isn't positive about lists made to be competitive.

WAAC describes a player not a list. You can bring dual lash and nob bikers and not be waac if you dont have a waac attitude.

Maybe we need a new derogatory acronym for fluff players. Fluff at all Costs, FAAC?

Is an army chosen based on a fluff story a FAAC list?

Should that person be allowed a chance to win at a tournament by instituting comp?

Comp is like mixing the traditional and special olympics, and instituting a maximum speed in the 100 yard dash so the special olympic competitors can keep up. No, we just keep them seperate and everyone is happy. Im sure there are people out there though that think the above is a good idea.........

Also I mean no offense to special olympics competitors, and I don't mean to say that casual gamers are mentally challenged, its just a comparison.

Seriously, what about at some point in the tourney you have to swap armies with your opponent? You have to face the same list you've played against your opponents and vice versa. Wouldn't that negate some of the this?

On another question, I've read a couple or three posts about re-engineering your list to face hordes or MEQs or whatever. Does that happen in most tourneys? You're actually allowed to have specific builds or recalibrations based on who you're facing? That just seems kind of off to me.

geeze PanamaG, hyperbole much? And I love how after a bunch of posts where people are (rightly) calling WAAC a perjorative, you compare players who dont take the hardest possible lists to special olympics competitors.

Comp is like having a salary cap in the NBA

or not allowing aluminum bats in baseball

or forcing boxers into weight classes

or widening the lane and changing the offensive goaltending rules because of wilt chamberlain

or having a pro-am golf tournament with handicaps

There are plenty of reasons for RTTs to use comp, and they're going to keep doing it. Comp is probably dead at GTs but based on the rules packets for recent events I've seen around here it's still alive somewhere, and with good reason.

This is just going in circles, partly because some people seem to feel the need to insult the other side by either calling them WAAC or implying that comp is for morons. Neither is true. A tournament with no comp and a tournament with restrictive comp can both be fun. Comp can come close to achieving the goals of the TO without too much collateral damage. There is no panacea, comp will always have flaws but they won't necessarily be bigger flaws than what already exist in the codexes/rulebooks in a lot of players opinions. To each his own. Personally, I'll play in both.

privateer4hire wrote:Seriously, what about at some point in the tourney you have to swap armies with your opponent? You have to face the same list you've played against your opponents and vice versa. Wouldn't that negate some of the this?

I doubt a lot of people want someone else touching their minis. Not that the average gamer would mess them up, but you just don't know the other guy.

If people didn't want someone else touching their minis...wouldn't lash be banned?

lambadomy wrote:geeze PanamaG, hyperbole much? And I love how after a bunch of posts where people are (rightly) calling WAAC a perjorative, you compare players who dont take the hardest possible lists to special olympics competitors.

I apologized already and will again. I am not making the comparison of special olympian to casual player, I am comparing the situations.

lambadomy wrote:If people didn't want someone else touching their minis...wouldn't lash be banned?

That's my main gripe against Lash. Get your cheetos hands away from my craptastic painted models.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

lambadomy wrote:If people didn't want someone else touching their minis...wouldn't lash be banned?

That's my main gripe against Lash. Get your cheetos hands away from my craptastic painted models.

Exactly and I just move them for my enemy. I mean, how precise does "away and clump together" need to be?

lambadomy wrote:If people didn't want someone else touching their minis...wouldn't lash be banned?

Do lash players and opponents really have a problem with this? When playing lash, I always let my opponent move the models, I just indicate where I want them moved and arranged, and vice versa when I am being lashed myself.

whitedragon wrote:when I am being lashed myself.

Oh baby.

lambadomy wrote:If people didn't want someone else touching their minis...wouldn't lash be banned?

I don't let the other person touch my miniatures. He can tell me where he wants them, I will move them there in the formation he specifies, I will ask him if that's what he "wanted", but he can't touch the minis.

If you think that's a problem, you're probably the exact sort of guy I don't want touching my minis. I know more people with this exact same attitude than I know without.

The only game I played my opponent asked me how I felt about people moving my minis, and took time before the game to explain lash to me so I wouldn't be suprised/annoyed by it. I thought that was pretty decent.

That's the sort of thing that should replace comp I reckon- just polite play at a highly competative level.

I agree with all of this - lash is definitely playable without actually touching your opponents minis, and I wouldn't have a problem with someone not letting me move/touch their minis if I was playing lash. Though I'm leaning to just not ever playing with lash and figuring out some other strong chaos build.

Of course...you could play someone else's whole army without touching their minis too...but it would be ridiculous. Funny to watch though.

Janthkin wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
- Is there something that is inaccurate about applying the "WAAC" label to a maximally-optimized list?
- If the list is constructed this way, isn't it constructed only for winning, taking anything to win?
- If it is indeed the "best list" for trying to win, then how is that not a WAAC list?

So I have to ask you to be a little less sensitive, and recognize that I only describe what you take to the table (WAAC), not how you play it (fun, sporting).

To "win at all costs" suggests far more than simply "bringing the best list you can construct." It carries connotations of poor sportsmanship, a hint of perfidious rules manipulation, and a whiff of abuse of the other player's inferior knowledge of some specific scenarios.

In short, I read it as a perjorative. It is, in fact, a four-letter word.

If you want a four-letter descriptor, why is "hard" insufficient?

If that's inadequate, why NOT type out "maximally-optimized?" The cost to type & transmit the extra letters doesn't come to a whole lot.

I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor can be applied to people, attitudes, and lists. And there's nothing that says that a WAAC list cannot be played by a fun person with a sporting attitude. A WAAC list just means that all of the stops were taken out in list building. That is accurate and fair.

It's pejorative when applied to a person or attitude, yes, but a list isn't a person or attitude. And as above, "WAAC" is clearly the best and most accurate way of describing the list. Also, "best", "good", "fair", "nice", "cool", and "Comp" are all 4-letter words. That said, if you perceive WAAC that way, then perhaps you should help push for things other than simply winning battles as "good" or "cool".

A "hard" list does NOT carry anywhere near the same accuracy of information. It's an euphemism, because "hard" implies that it's only somewhat tougher than average. And that is NOT what people are describing. My early 3E lists were merely "hard", as I was still optimizing. Some of my casual 3E lists were "hard" because by then I knew what was tough and what wasn't, and I deliberately left a few stops in. But my tournament lists for when prizes on the line? WAAC.

A seven-syllable phrase in lieu of a 4-letter word is PCness that I won't stoop to. Second it is too much typing for me.

augustus5 wrote:It would be hard to design a tournament for casual gamers alone because who would decide what can be taken and what can not be taken. And even if an event creates an list of acceptable choices for each codex gamers will be able to find and exploit things that were not considered. It pains me to hear people at a tournament gripe about some guys over powered army they faced. The point of coming to a tournament is to bring the best army and win. If you're interested in just a fun game you'd be better served playing against a friend in a more relaxed atmosphere anyway.

This is not aimed at augustus5 in particular, but I quote him to illustrate a point. The reason that comp is contemplated in the first place is because so much emphasis is placed on battle points. If you set up a tourney so the easiest way to win is to get top battle points in all the games, what do you expect to happen? People game the system by bringing the hardest lists they can. They want to succeed, and success is not measured by modeling, painting, sportsmanship, or fluff. It's measured by blowing the other player out in the most spectacular fashion possible, and doing that in the most games possible.

If you really, *REALLY* want to see a tournament where power lists are not the norm, emphasize something else besides battle points.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor can be applied to people, attitudes, and lists. And there's nothing that says that a WAAC list cannot be played by a fun person with a sporting attitude. A WAAC list just means that all of the stops were taken out in list building. That is accurate and fair.

I don't think referring to you as JohnnyWango is demeaning or patronizing, and I find it to be more fun to type out. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for me to continue to do so because it increases my enjoyment and the observing audience still knows the exact person to whom I am referring with no ambiguity. This is accurate and fair.

Nicknames are terms of endearment. And you don't get to choose your own nickname anyway, that makes no sense!

I'm really tired of NAAC (name at all costs) posters.

On a more serious note...while there has been a lot of (legitimate) complaining about specific comp rules and pointing out their flaws...do you players that really really don't like comp actively avoid comp events?