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.

Peregrine:

I might be impressed by the above (read, "not impressed at all"), if only I hadn't quoted you earlier as saying essentially the same thing about your own criterion of playing 40k.

 Traditio wrote:
I might be impressed by the above (read, "not impressed at all"), if only I hadn't quoted you earlier as saying essentially the same thing about your own criterion of playing 40k.

Except I didn't say the same thing. The topic of the thread is "what do you prefer", I gave an answer to that question. I didn't include the same kind of "everyone else is doing it wrong" judgement, where two people playing the game in a way that you personally don't enjoy is somehow Doing It Wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I might be impressed by the above (read, "not impressed at all"), if only I hadn't quoted you earlier as saying essentially the same thing about your own criterion of playing 40k.

Except I didn't say the same thing. The topic of the thread is "what do you prefer", I gave an answer to that question. I didn't include the same kind of "everyone else is doing it wrong" judgement, where two people playing the game in a way that you personally don't enjoy is somehow Doing It Wrong.

"WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC). I don't care about your awful fanfiction for your space marines, just bring a good list and play the game" (Peregrine, this thread, 2016/05/31 19:23:40).

I'll let the readers of this thread form their own judgments on the matter.

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I might be impressed by the above (read, "not impressed at all"), if only I hadn't quoted you earlier as saying essentially the same thing about your own criterion of playing 40k.

Except I didn't say the same thing. The topic of the thread is "what do you prefer", I gave an answer to that question. I didn't include the same kind of "everyone else is doing it wrong" judgement, where two people playing the game in a way that you personally don't enjoy is somehow Doing It Wrong.

"WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC). I don't care about your awful fanfiction for your space marines, just bring a good list and play the game" (Peregrine, this thread, 2016/05/31 19:23:40).

I'll let the readers of this thread form their own judgments on the matter.

I've judged that Peregrine doesn't care about fluff when they sit down to play a game, and prefer a good challenge compared to a stomp of any kind due to either fluff or TFG behavior.

I also want to point out that someone earlier said something about people using the word "fluff" to justify anything and everything they want to bring. I've seen that, and it's weird to me. I have no personal problem with your army having a story (very very slowly working on a custom craftworld myself), I just thought the fluff was theoretically stuff established by GW, not what is essentially fanfiction just to be able to have a reason your army has a thing most armies of that faction don't bring a lot of. Then again, the person who was proudest of his big "fluff" backstory was the most WAAC person I've played yet.

 Traditio wrote:
"WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC). I don't care about your awful fanfiction for your space marines, just bring a good list and play the game" (Peregrine, this thread, 2016/05/31 19:23:40).

I'll let the readers of this thread form their own judgments on the matter.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? I expressed my opinion about games involving me, in response to a poll asking "what do you prefer". You expressed your judgement of games you aren't participating in.

And no, the first part has nothing to do with opinions on play style. The OP is using "WAAC" to describe playing competitive/optimized/etc armies, not "win at all costs" behavior like rules lawyering, moving your models 0.5" extra to get into range, etc. The actual opposing options are "fluffy" and "competitive", not "fluffy" and "WAAC".

What's fluffy for BA is completely unplayable at this point. Does that make me WAAC, even though I still don't win?

Martel732 wrote:
What's fluffy for BA is completely unplayable at this point. Does that make me WAAC, even though I still don't win?

This is why the dichotomy is just silly.

Another obvious example:

What if I want to play Khorne Berserkers + Thousand Sons?

It's not particularly "fluffy." That's mixing two different chaos deities who don't necessarily get along. It's also not a particularly strong combination.

Again, shenanigans vs. fair is the appropriate dichotomy.

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What's fluffy for BA is completely unplayable at this point. Does that make me WAAC, even though I still don't win?

This is why the dichotomy is just silly.

Another obvious example:

What if I want to play Khorne Berserkers + Thousand Sons?

It's not particularly "fluffy." That's mixing two different chaos deities who don't necessarily get along. It's also not a particularly strong combination.

Again, shenanigans vs. fair is the appropriate dichotomy.

No it's not.
Why? Because that is not what the OP is asking.
Fluffy =/= fair.
WAAC =/= unfluffy
Fluffy =/= tame
WAAC =/=imbalanced

The two are not mutually exclusive - yes, I think it's a badly worded poll, and doesn't reflect on the non-binary nature, but it's certainly not what you claim.

A WAAC list can easily be called competitive, but might not cheat, break rules, or use rule lawyering. It might just be a strong list. Fluffy can easily be competitive, or not. You can easily have lists that are neither - case in point, your possibly hypothetical Khorne+Tzeentch list.

Your point is not accurate with the initial poll, and is in no way reflected.

Just leave it. This is Traditio. In his head disagreeing is a sign of insanity or trolling.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:No it's not.
Why? Because that is not what the OP is asking.
Fluffy =/= fair.
WAAC =/= unfluffy
Fluffy =/= tame
WAAC =/=imbalanced

The two are not mutually exclusive - yes, I think it's a badly worded poll, and doesn't reflect on the non-binary nature, but it's certainly not what you claim.

A WAAC list can easily be called competitive, but might not cheat, break rules, or use rule lawyering. It might just be a strong list. Fluffy can easily be competitive, or not. You can easily have lists that are neither - case in point, your possibly hypothetical Khorne+Tzeentch list.

Your point is not accurate with the initial poll, and is in no way reflected.

I fully agree with what you are saying.

My point is that the poll presents a false dichotomy.

Edit:

Also, lol at the word "possibly," bolded/underlined above.

 Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:No it's not.
Why? Because that is not what the OP is asking.
Fluffy =/= fair.
WAAC =/= unfluffy
Fluffy =/= tame
WAAC =/=imbalanced

The two are not mutually exclusive - yes, I think it's a badly worded poll, and doesn't reflect on the non-binary nature, but it's certainly not what you claim.

A WAAC list can easily be called competitive, but might not cheat, break rules, or use rule lawyering. It might just be a strong list. Fluffy can easily be competitive, or not. You can easily have lists that are neither - case in point, your possibly hypothetical Khorne+Tzeentch list.

Your point is not accurate with the initial poll, and is in no way reflected.

I fully agree with what you are saying.

My point is that the poll presents a false dichotomy.

Edit:

Also, lol at the word "possibly," bolded/underlined above.

Exactly - so you create a whole new point. Which is not what the poll asks.

And what's funny about my possibly? I have no idea what armies you play as - could be hypothetical, might not be. At the end of the day, it matters little to me.