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.

Hello dakka!

I have a short survey for a college class I am taking on digital communities that I wonder if you might fill out. I've been playing 40k (Imperial Guard and Wolves) for years now, and noticed how robust the discussions on balance and narrative are here. I appreciate you immensely!

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

Thank you so much!

1.) Casual player. I don't get bent over shape when an opponent forgets a rule, often allow ambiguous situations go towards my opponent, and I bought a mustache (because my familial blood makes it impossible for me to grow anything more than a toothbrush on my face) specifically to twirl as I play the bad guy to be beaten. Enjoyment comes from converting and general interaction with friends. Hate painting (ironic, considering my job as an animator).

2.) Online and real life are two different things. I usually try to look for how the rule might have been intended to play. In actual games, I don't care much if I do lose (and I'm also unnaturally lucky in games for some reason) and I often allow people to tweak their lists to face me. I never tweak mine against them because my armies are often all made with meticulous planning with a theme in mind, and I literally would rather lose than compromise that.

3.) For me, anyone who needs to win with a technical loophole, especially if they need a very specific reading of the rules to accomplish. I generally dislike playing with these types of people because the game grinds to a halt as every one of my actions get scrutinized to the most minute detail. I have seen someone utterly flip their gak because of 1 mm of a difference between movement.

4.) if it interests me, then yes. Although in most cases I would let the imbalance go in favour of the opponent than me, as I find people are much more willing to play knowing they have the advantage, and feels more liberated when offered the position rather than having to come out and say it.

5.) Surprisingly, not really. The game's own interactions are enough for me. I mostly enjoy the hilarious results, like in last edition where a demo charge flies backwards into someone's face.

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

Competitive, I enjoy narrative/casual far more.

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

In a competitive environment this doesn't come up. In casual, we simply don't play units our opponent can't handle, or would make the game one-sided. Everyone should have fun.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

A WAAC player who doesn't cheat or otherwise bend the rules, interfere with the game, or generally be rude or upset when he/she loses, is simply not a WAAC player.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

I'll say yes. If you approach the game with the knowledge that it may not be fair and totally unbalanced in your opponents favor, that's not a big deal. But not in a competitive game. Competitive should be strictly balanced.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

A narrative can make the game more fun, but at the core of it, I play the game because I like the models and the playstyle.

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?
Definitely casual

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?
My opponents: Gripe and complain. Me: Either figure out a way around it (ignoring the big model to get objective points, using my army in unconventional ways, etc) and deal with it. If the person is the problem, make some suggestions before the next game, if it continues, avoid playing them again.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?
Someone who just aims for the most powerful, wants to be able to 'fix' their mistakes, but is unyielding when you make a mistake, but mostly the attitude of just wanting to win to the exclusion of anything else. I play games to have fun, winning is a side boon. No enjoyment in those games whatsoever.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?
Absolutely. Some of the Fate of Konor matches were virtually impossible to win for my army, I played each knowing that and just looking to see how far I got, or imagining the futility of it from a soldier's perspective.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?
Vital. I find if I don't have a narrative, I just don't play. There's no fun to it for me to just buy miniatures to have a pissing contest.

1. A balance between casual and competitive. Our group is a mixed age group. Versus adults I show them no mercy. Versus the minors I am a lot more lenient, as my patience will allow.

2.Balnce within the game is dealt as the rule as written. Everyone can choose to field what ever faction and or unit as published to their desire. Folks can their army list along the files as guidelines.

3.WAAC players are not a problem so long as they stick to the rules and avoid cheating.

4.Rules are what they are. If a special scenario has rules that favor one side or another, it is done to play it as is. So long as it is agreed to before hand. Some folks like an extra little challenge in a match.

5 As for the narrative, it is all good and done. I am mainly showing up to move my little models, roll some dice, talk some smack. I am their for the fight!

1) "In the middle." I play to win, but avoid going for stuff that actively flies in the face of the fluff (like Barkstars, or Khorne Flesh Hounds acting as bodyguards for a Slaaneshi Sorcerer or so. I enjoy 40k when it feels like an actual game, but I also enjoy the homebrew aspect (both on a "make the fluff and crunch align" aspect, as well as a "better core mechanics" one)

2) I tend to focus more on 'play mistakes' rather than list composition. I play for TAC rather than to tailor and don't go "please don't use X against me."

3) Loaded dice, bribing the TOs, gluing the pages of your opponent's rulebook together, chipmunking sportsmanship scores, conveniently "forgetting" rules only to remember them depending on when they're most advantageous, slow-playing when you have a lead so you "win" by the game running out of time to be played. Simply bringing a hard list isn't enough to be WAAC.

4) Eh, roll with it, unless it makes the game unplayable. If a rule has super-ambiguous RAW that cannot be reasonably resolved, I avoid using that rule altogether. Ditto for mechanics that take too many die-rolls to resolve for minimal effect. On another note, given the insane amount of rolls and rerolls in 40k, I really wish dice-rolling apps were more popular.

5) As long as it's "plausible," I guess. I care about the game being more a battle of wits rather than a statistical arms race ("My DPS is better than yours."). It's easy to make a *bad* list in 40k after all, and one-sided fights just aren't engaging.

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

Casual player, hands down. I enjoy imagining the battle and the conversations about the game with the opponent. I feel like competitive players don't take time to enjoy the game. It's more about the attitude of the other player, than the list they play

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

We just play the game. If I feel like an army is OP, I'll avoid playing it. I've had some opponents who just passively complain about imbalances.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

WAAC to me is a player that will always have a min/max list, and plays the game as fast as they can in order to win as much as they can. Generally I find they use some gameplay tactics such as speed dice, that are not friendly to a casual, or new player. The only emotions I see WAAC players have is negative ones. Upset about a dice roll or whatever.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

First, if it's a campaign, I wouldn't expect it to be competitive. If it is, scenario rules are expected, otherwise what is the point of the campaign? I've played several that had imbalanced scenarios for the sake of narrative. You just have to get into the character of your army in that situation.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

Narrative is very important, not really as much as the entire battle, but all the little conflicts. Having several small stories in the battle is something I pretty much need. I don't need the other player to arrange this stuff, its more like imagining how awesome your captain who killed a carnifex is, and taking the time in game to appreciate it with your opponent. If the opponent is WAAC, and just pissed they lost a unit, it ruins the game.

1. Casual

2. We pretty much deal only in narrative/fluff/etc..

3. I don't like WAAC players. You can be WAAC all you want at a tournament. Just don't bring it to 40k fun night.

4. See above answers

5. No, it wouldnt.

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

Casual. I have the capacity for competitive play, but I find that the mentality that goes with it (I.e. considering your opponent to be the enemy) is inverse to enjoyment

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

Attempt to choose lists that are suitable for the opponent; try to be clear about the relative power level of a list before the start of the game. During the game the person winning may make poor tactical decisions to even the odds.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

WAAC simply means that the player is willing to throw away the shared enjoyment of himself and other participants in order to secure victory. I do not enjoy playing against this mentality, I think ultimately it’s childish; WAAC players fail to conquer their egos.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

In a casual game, definitely. Different (and especially uneven) scenarios create tactically diverse challenges. In a tournament or formal competition I would err on the side of like-for-like scenarios.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

An engaging narrative helps to set the scene, creates heroes, and can turn an activity in moving plastic dollies around a table into a visceral and dynamic battlefield. The imagery can help you make decisions that are interesting from the game perspective, even if they’re not optimal tactically. E.g. Officer Dave will hold objective 3, or die trying. A lack of narrative makes the stakes extremely low, and all of your dollies are vanilla versions of the codex explanation.

1) I would say I am on the competitive side. I enjoy iterating on lists and optimizing them based on my own experiences, while still playing what I consider "fluffly" lists and the models I like.

2) It depends on the context. If someone is running 6 malefic lords in a casual game I might comment on it. If it's a tournament everything goes.

3) A WAAC player is someone who goes into a casual game with the primary objective of winning; having fun takes a back seat. In a tournament setting I expect people to bring their A-game and I bring mine in turn, so no problems there. In a casual game I am not a fan of playing them.

4) I am fine with being disadvantaged by narrative stuff, and am fine with the other player being disadvantaged only if he is as well. In a competitive environment I think it kind of defeats the point by messing with the level playing field. I am open to using these in casual games.

5) Having an engaging narrative is a nice plus, but not required. We (me and my opponent) can almost always come up with some sort of narrative, if not a compelling one.

1. Casual, that enjoys a competitive game every now and then.

2. Put on your big kid pants and deal. 8th ed 40k is far from perfect or balanced.

3. A person that crafts the biggest cheese list they can, then goes out to club unsuspecting seals. They are bad for a casual environment. Take that cheese to a tournament.

4. Casual sure, competitive nope.

5. Not really i am just playing for the banter and fun. A good narrative sort of takes care of itself if you havr a good opponent.

 mesaknight wrote:
Hello dakka!

I have a short survey for a college class I am taking on digital communities that I wonder if you might fill out. I've been playing 40k (Imperial Guard and Wolves) for years now, and noticed how robust the discussions on balance and narrative are here. I appreciate you immensely!

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

Both. They aren't opposed concepts.
In the real world, I haven't meet many people who'd class as either as the terms are used on the internet. On the internet, 'casuals' tend to be much more obnoxious, just for the constant claims that everyone else is doing it wrong.

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

Use them as written. 'Dealing' with them when 'coming across' them means forcing a decision in someone's favor.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

Prioritizing an effective list. Most of the rest is just pejoratives by people who want to cast tournaments as BadWrongFun. Mostly for liking what they don't like.
And I say that as someone that hasn't played in a tournament in the last five years. It's just the wacky side effect of the internet, where people feel obliged to be selfish, rude and obnoxious.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

Eh. Probably not. It's a pretty loaded question though (I'd actually like to see an example), but the answer to all 3 is likely no.
It's a game- rules and balance just matter more than a really subjective view of what might be fitting in terms of 'fluff' or 'narrative.'

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you?

Not at all. Each game can't have an engaging narrative- they'd contradict each other constantly, and frankly the game rules and the setting don't reflect each other well at all. And not just for Warhams. Most minis games have this problem- how many times does Character X get blown up in games of X-wing?

If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

Nope. It's unrelated. The games are mini-social events with list building and tactics, not setting related. For example, loyalist marine on loyalist marine doesn't fit very much at all, but is the most common match up by far. No one performs according to their fluff incarnations, and the big important idiots just wouldn't turn up for these minor skirmishes. If someone wants to write overly involved fanfics about their armies, that's fine and all, but I'd rather they didn't share.

1) I am a casual player in the sense that I like to play for fun and find absolute min/maxing to be more frustrating than enteraining. I list build to fit a theme and strategy but once the game starts I try my hardest to win. I enjoy creating and executing strategies that fit a theme. That being said I am the type of person to try to min/max but its trying to maximize the effectiveness of my theme or strategy.
Example being in 7th I wanted to play a list that has a Blitz Brigade and 3 Dakkajets in a 2k point game. I also really enjoy Flash Gitz and they synergism well with the Blitz Brigade so they needed to be included. I min/max from there to get the most out of that theme/strategy and make it somewhat viable to play.

2) Try to use a gentleman's agreement of sorts to keep the games relatively fair. Not gonna bring a gak kicker list against a very fluffy list.

3) WAAC to me is when you value winning over the enjoyment of everyone involved. Rules lawyering to the point of irritation, exploiting mechanics in a way that removes the fun from the game, and generally playing to win over playing to have fun.

4) The occasional scenario could be fun but I tend to find a lot of them to be rather meh or not all that interesting.

5) In 40k any army can find any other so its hard to say that X would NEVER fight Y. That being said I don't like seeing the same handful of heroes in every game. I do like it when armies have an interesting or fluff driven composition as it lets the gameplay unfold to create its own narrative. In general though I value an interesting and close battle over one that is heavy on the narrative or being an absolute stomp (win or lose).

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

I'm a competitive person, but in the Games Workshop game-verse, the games are too easy to exploit, so I prefer events and games where we are not exploiting bad rule design

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

In a tournament environment, you actively exploit those issues of balance and try to max out on them, because your opponent is trying to do the same. Outside of the tournament hall, we come up with a game that is not broken for either party so that we all can have fun.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

A WAAC player is defined by the "At all Costs" portion of WAAC. Which means they will also cheat. This is different from a powergamer who will stay within the confines of the rules, though will exploit loopholes and rules abuses because technically its in the confines of the rules.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

You're talking about 40k in general lol. I prefer playing 40k in a narrative context and not a powergaming context, because its rules are not really fitting for powergaming as they are easy to destroy and abuse.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

The storyline and the aesthetics are what drive me in wargaming. I'm a storyteller first and a gamer second.

1.Casual

2.My group and i generally know what sort of a game we will be wanting to play (for example, last game we decided in advance to have my friends Crimson Fists defending an ambush scenario against my Tyranids. With a bit of thougft, its generally fairly easy to come up with lists that will give a good tight game without one side getting splatted. It ALL about a bit of advance preparation and discussion, I don't tend to play pick up games very often.

3. My view of a Waac player is someone who sees the rules of a game as a means to an end when it comes to winning and will therefore pick lists on the perceived strength and efficiency of a unit with little thought to the theme of an army. Most waac players I know are friendly and certainly not cheaters but they enjoy different aspects of the hobby to myself is all.

4 My personal opinion is that fluff is always the way to go, so yes i would use the rule in question if i believed it fitted the concept of the game or army.

5 Quite possibly the most important thing. If a game has a good setup, a scenario that excites my imagination or if the army has a style that i like (for example, i have struggled through the last few editions of 40k with Tyranids because....gribbly alien swarms!!) As to games, I'm there to win this battle against overwhelming odds, hold that fortress or whatever, not just roll dice and take models off the table. I came to miniatures gaming in the early 90`s after years of tabletop rpging, so story and scenario really are my "thing".
As to the little or no reason to fight.....this really is never a problem with a bit of lateral thinking about the scenario a sthere are many ways to justify things like allies or even 2 forces from the same army fighting each other.

hope this helps.

 mesaknight wrote:
Hello dakka!

I have a short survey for a college class I am taking on digital communities that I wonder if you might fill out. I've been playing 40k (Imperial Guard and Wolves) for years now, and noticed how robust the discussions on balance and narrative are here. I appreciate you immensely!

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

Thank you so much!

1) Casual. I get the most enjoyment painting armies, playing games against experienced players at 2,000 - 3,000 points, and debating rules.

2) We discuss balance issues actively. There are very few things we consider issues, Dakka is overreactive by comparison. When something seems too overpowered, we either limit it's use in games or play games specifically to test for that unit's impact. For example: conscript spam, we constructed an IG list specifically to see how 120 conscripts play on the table and found it was a mixed bag, nothing definitively OP. For example: Mortarion, we constructed a list specifically designed to counter him and found he was definitely very powerful but not OP, a few lucky dice rolls made him seem omnipotent.

3) I would not call WAAC players competitive. They tend to run lists that overvalue the impact of certain units and count on executing specific tactics to win games. What defines a WAAC player is they tend to have a rigid approach to the game, only be aware of rules that support their style of play, and need constant correction from the BRB. A game with a WAAC player feels more like an exercise in looking up references than seeing where the dice take you. WAAC seems to be a state people get caught up in and eventually outgrow.

4) Yes to casual play. Variety keeps the game from becoming tedious. No to a competitive game. I would argue with the tournament organizer to have it removed before the competition began. Not sure I would enjoy using it.

5) No. I generally don't like narratives, they tend to be oversimplified or so sophisticated it takes work to stick with it. I like narratives that encourage me to take different combinations of units so long as there is some way to keep the game competitive. For example: I don't want my army stuck in a circle in the middle of the board just to fit a narrative. I might enjoy a game where I am encouraged to take Chaos Bikers because there is some benefit to striking first.

 mesaknight wrote:
Hello dakka!

I have a short survey for a college class I am taking on digital communities that I wonder if you might fill out. I've been playing 40k (Imperial Guard and Wolves) for years now, and noticed how robust the discussions on balance and narrative are here. I appreciate you immensely!

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

Thank you so much!

1) This is a difficult question for me. I consider myself casual/fluffy, but I do try to optimize my armies within the narrative (e.g. I don't take Conscripts because superheavy tank regiments wouldn't have access to integral infantry formations, but I will spam Trojans to make my tanks more effective). As for where I get the most enjoyment - the narrative, definitely. I view my army as a living, breathing, evolving thing like a D&D character, and each battle is an opportunity to tell a story - whether it is a tale of the power of Imperial armour sweeping all before it, or a tale of sorrow and loss as the heroic men that crew the ancient relics are slain, with some vehicles slowly and mournfully burning up or others enduring to the last until they vent their fury in a cataclysmic detonation.

2) This is actually something I am struggling with as well. I've played a superheavy regiment for a long time, and usually Baneblades and their ilk have never been terribly good, so the balance is shifted against me. I played those games anyways, though, and never really complained. Now, however, the vehicles are supercharged and it's a struggle to play them narratively. People who don't get enjoyment from the narrative (but rather the game) also don't like to play them, as they are tactically boring and unchallenging. That is an unforseen issue which I have to address as well, and have found no suitable answer for.

3) This depends more on the player's attitude than anything. I think WAAC is thrown around far more often than it actually should be, and I've played against the best-of-the-best tournament players in a casual setting and had a blast while getting tabled. I was one of the unlucky few whom Nick tested Leafblower on in 5th before he took it to 'Ard Boyz, for example. But Nick was a great guy, and as my poor Russes and Baneblades got blatted off the table, we laughed and joked. It was awesome. Conversely, I've played against 'narrative' or 'casual' players who are massive jerks in my long history. I'm not sure there's any correlation between WAAC/CAAC/FAAC/whatever-AAC and douchebaggery.

4) I would absolutely use it in both settings, though I also would recognize that in a competitive setting it is unsuitable. And I would absolutely enjoy using it; in fact, I'm often playing these, either because I'm invited to an Apoc game (which tend to be very narrative) or because people want to ambush my tanks and try to knock them out. Usually this request comes from people with a specific grudge against a company or tank. They come to me on 40k night and say "I want to kill Aggressor, so my Chaos Lord is waiting until you're deployed to this jungle world and caught in a narrow space before ambushing your tanks from orbit!" and I am usually fine with it if I don't have a pre-planned game.

5) It does not. I can contrive myriad reasons for my army to fight any other army. Usually, if it's against Imperial foes, I like to talk it out ahead of time; much of the time it boils down to one or the other of us being confused about the other's identity, or a 'training mission' with simulated munitions.

1) Casual : I come from an odd background. I went to school for theatre and enjoy the narrative/thematic elements (well painted armies, beautiful tables). I view a wargame like 40K as a chance to create a battle which would produce an interesting book, novel, comic, or movie. Basically getting to "perform" an action movie in which the actors/participants are not aware of the result. I enjoy amazing "moments" in the game regardless of who it benefits. My other background is law enforcement/military where I've had plenty of genuine conflict...I'm not looking for someone to take a simple game of toy soldiers so serious that they get angry or pissed off about it.

2) If I'm playing the same player, we definitely balance lists if it's becoming unfun or nigh impossible for one side to be competitive during a game. We're not averse to a re-set or scenario adjustment mid-game if the game is becoming a one-sided avalanche.

3) The defining trait of a WAAC player to me, would be a person totally unconcerned with the enjoyment that his opponent is having. The person who pursues a turn-one tabling of his opponent just to make it to the next round. This is occasionally coupled with a complete lack of interest in the hobby/modeling/painting aspect of the wargame.

4) All day, every day. Interesting scenarios or rules are what elevate the game above chasing blank tokens around a featureless table.

5) If the game isn't built around a narrative, I vastly prefer one occurs naturally during the game. A showdown between warlords, the desperate last stand of a beleaguered unit, the unstoppable transport vehicle which saves the day, etc. A well fought game should be able to read like an exciting accounting of a desperate combat --- something you'd want to read about in a Black Library novel.

 mesaknight wrote:


1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

Frankly - neither and both at the same time. To elaborate: my usual opponent and I like cross-tailored lists and asymmetric, one-off scenarios with a clear theme to all aspects of our games, but approach them in a serious fashion of... finding objectively best solutions for such games. This is somewhat more collaborative than competetive effort with "lead player" changing each turn. We often discuss "trees of possibilities" of each phase or turn outcomes and then proceed to "unveil" results via rolling necessary dice. The results are stories of battles, turning points and spectacular moments of "in 40K universe performances of units/models/characters", not victories and defeats of players. So it is hard to tell if I'm more competetive (as in "ever increasing my deep understanding of game rules and ballance for maximum performance") or casual (as in "relaxed evening of model-pushing without man-to-man competition").

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

As a straightforward result of my previous answer: we tend to resolve balance issues by cross tailoring up front, making up ballancing scenarios and extensive houseruling of severly OP or underdog units permanently.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

A person who do not comunicate with opposing player to establish if their 40K needs are similiar and styles of play compatible and mutually enjoyable or even lies and decieves opponents to "lure them" into one-sided waste-of-time games for personal "false feel of grandeur". "Up to teeth" tournament players are not WAAC if they are up front sincere about what they expect and enjoy, even if they build "loophole exploit" lists. I did enjoy playing such players from time to time during 7th (those with interesting, non-netlist armies) and in "index only" times of 8th ed, just to ensure, that my understanding of game and ballance isn't false or fading away because of my preferred "mode of play".

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

Another consequence of our group's "basic mode" of play - our style is all about interesting "special snowflake" abilities, scenarios, rules... That is the reason why we stayed with 7th ed and build "ourhammer" on old ruleset.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

There is nothing more boring to watch for me than power armour vs power armour, ITC standard, "cookie cutter" batrep of "purely player vs player" level of "40K checkers". There has to be an interesting uniqueness in a battle for me to enjoy it. Simple "these rainbow marines clash those other rainbow marines over 10,000 years quarrel" do nothing for me if table looks as always, armies look and deploy as always and only dice rolls are only mystery...

1. I'm in the middle. I want to try to win but not by taking units that I don't feel fit in the army or go against fluff. For example as a nid player I hated it when multiple hive tyrants started showing up in lists as the fluff I liked was that a hive tyrant was 'the essence of the hive mind' - one hive tyrant would control a planetary invasion so why would there be 3-4 in a tiny patch of terrain? I don't care if I lose as long as I had a reasonable chance and it was a good game - which is more important. I would rather lose a close exciting game than win a game where the opponent had little chance.

2. The gaming group in my area is pretty good and while loathe to ban things, some tournaments that are run will have limitations - for example no LOW or no FW or this tournament is for fun lists - an then tough tourneys too, If a unit has seriously broken rules then there might be discussion that a rules adjustment needs to be done - but as I recall that would be rare.

3. WAAC - I would say its a player that needs to win regardless the fun of their opponent or the quality of the game. So person A knows they are playing person B today and Person B uses army X so player A makes a build that he knows the other player cannot deal with so it will be a slaughter. I'm not talking about a tournament or something where people are expected to bring the strongest lists - this will happen in casual games.

4. If a rule fits fluff and narrative-wise fits in the game but is badly written I don't have a problem dropping it or adjusting it so that it works for a better game. If it wasn't balanced and ruined the game I would prefer it was not used in casual or competitive games. Of course it depends on the other player and the community.

5. Having an engaging narrative is not critical for me. Certainly if playing in a tournament or something where a scenario works well with my army is more engaging than not. As a nid player the reason for obtaining an objective is usually different from most other armies - just want to destroy the enemy to collect the biomass basically - the hunger! Yes it can detract a bit. Game rules can do that as well. When challenges were added to the game and no option for nid players to ignore a challenge (why would a nid unit care) it that detracts from game.

 mesaknight wrote:
Hello dakka!

I have a short survey for a college class I am taking on digital communities that I wonder if you might fill out. I've been playing 40k (Imperial Guard and Wolves) for years now, and noticed how robust the discussions on balance and narrative are here. I appreciate you immensely!

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

Casual. I mostly enjoy the modeling, painting, and creating stories with my armies. I prefer to play against fully painted armies on fully painted terrain for this reason. It helps with the immersion.

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

If it creates a negative play experience, we usually have a "gentleman's" agreement to either not use it, or give a heads up so people can build around it (ex. 7th edition all Imp Knight list)

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

A person whose goal is their enjoyment of winning over everyone's enjoyment for playing. Usually looking for exploits and loopholes. And usually a person who does not want competition, they want someone who will just roll over and lose. No, I don't enjoy playing against them. We just have different goals. I hope they enjoy their games, it's just not for me. We can both enjoy 40k in different ways.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

We'd probably use it, but house rule it so everyone enjoys it. A game of 40k is a social contract between two people to have fun for 2 or 3 hours. If the rules make it not fun, then why spend your time doing it.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

Supremely important. I have named all of my characters, vehicles, and squads. I have backstory and lore on them. I like to create narrative tales about the games we play. I'm less interested in a 2 hour face-smash game. That's fine for others, not my cup of tea. But in the crazy world of 40k, it's pretty easy to come up with a reason for just about any two armies to fight.

Thank you so much!

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

Casually competitive, probably 40% competitive, 60% casual at this point in my gaming. I get the most enjoyment from tactical play on the table top (hence competitive). But I tend not to like playing power lists, and try to ensure both players have a good time.

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

typically we don't, in a the casual setting, they rarely come up. In a competitive setting they are what they are. Personally if I find something in my own list to be over powering I'll stop bringing it for most games.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

I would only use that to describe unsportsmanlike players (they don't even have to be good), but players who either complain too much for losing, or brag too much when winning. People who argue rules too much etc. I typically don't enjoy playing these people.

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

I would not use it in casual (unless it is unbalanced because it is weak), I might in competitive. I generally would not enjoy doing so, and general avoid these types of things.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?
It isn't important to me, I play to have a close game, where, things could swing either way. What models are on the table don't much matter.