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.

I'd like to start by apologizing for derailing this thread in any way as I think it is a worthwhile discussion.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I was going to stop posting in this thread, because a lot of the WAAC list guys want to prove the point about WAAC being pejorative by acting like TFG, and quite frankly it's becoming offensive. As it takes 2 to fight, I'm bowing out.

Two things:
1. This is a highly inflammatory statement that violates the Dakka forum posting guidelines. Please consult them before you post further.
2. It is ironic that you found those with opposing viewpoints were "acting like TFG" as their arguments were formed with the same rhetorical organization as your posts.

Yes, it's characteristic of the poster in question's posting style. You can refer to a page back when he said that using the term 'WAAC' wasn't perjorative because he said so. I countered by referring to him as a nickname he obviously didn't prefer, but my rationale was I didn't intend it in a perjorative manner (which is true, I have no feelings whatsoever about him) so therefore it wasn't. He said it obviously was, because he perceived it as so. So basically, disregarding logical consistency, it's going to be 'Do as I say, not do as I do, what is right is what I define it as' with this individual.

If you'll notice that he claims to have backed out of the fight because it takes two to rumble, I think it was simply a matter of having the last word and leaving. Admitted that we've derailed this thread slightly, but I fully expect to see him return to "defend himself" against these "personal attacks" until he once again feels that he can leave after having the last word. It'll be unfortunate when that inevitably further derails the thread, as I think most people can see through his posturing pretty easily.

[MODERATOR MODE ON] Re: The “WAAC” rumble, I think both sides have expressed themselves fully on the subject. No further posts on this subject are necessary. [/MODERATOR MODE OFF]

In my own experience, WAAC is usually used as a pejorative, referring as much to a person’s attitude as to their list.

gorgon wrote:But I have to say that putting Nob bikers in the "not that hard to kill" category is pretty much a joke. Space Marine Scouts are "not that hard to kill." Same goes for Fire Warriors, Guardians and Lesser Summoned Daemons.

Nob bikers *are* hard to kill. Unstoppable? Of course not, and I never even implied such a ridiculous thing. But they are hard to kill. And that's mostly because a trick using the wound allocation rules in the 5th edition rulebook.

QFT. Back in 4th ed, some people claimed that Holofalcons weren’t hard to deal with either. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. And just because a couple of codices can come up with counters, doesn’t mean that the majority can.

gorgon wrote:

lambadomy wrote:People have tried this before - I've never played in a tournament like this, but it was talked about elsewhere...maybe in this thread. Some percentage of your army is in a sidebar where you have multiple choices.

They actually did this during one USGT season. I think it was 2001.

Yup. Baltimore 2001 was my first GT. You had a 1200pt core list and two 500pt blocks. The 1200 point core list did not have to be a legal list. Both combinations of 1200+500 AND a third combination (1200 plus BOTH 500pt blocks) had to make legal army lists. Comp was judged on the full 2200pt list. Before each game you selected your block, except for games 4 and 6, in which the second 500pt block was also active as Reserves.

BillTheManiac wrote:Add up for every different unit type you take:

# of X unit you take * # of X unit in all army lists in the tournament * # of different units in that slot in your codex. Then divide by number of units you took.

The higher your number the lower your comp.

This sounds pretty neat, though work intensive, as you have to count up how many times any given unit appears over all the armies in the tournament, then perform the equation on every list. One thing that’s neat about it is that it appears it could be automated if the lists were all input into a spreadsheet.

Bill, do we add up the different numbers for all of a list’s different units? So if I have (for example) a Space Wolf list with a Wolf Lord, Wolf Guard Battle Leader, a squad of Wolf Scouts, two squads of Blood Claws, two squads of Grey Hunters, a squad of Attack Bikes, a Vindicator, and a Land Raider, I perform the calculation 8 times (one for each different unit type) and sum the results?

Gentlemen,

This thread has been reported several times and has spiralled into some flaming. As such I am closing the thread down before disciplinary action needs to be taken.

As the subject has had some meritorious posts you are free to repost the original topic.