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.

How do you make an army? Is it a WAAC army or an army you like?

I hear people say some of the choices I make for my necron army aren't good because "That unit iz t3h suxx0r5!" Well, Maybe I just like that unit, or I feel that another unit isn't fitting with the army background I created.

Plus as I see it,. one new rules change can nerf a WAAC army at GWs whim, but the army I like will always be the army I like.

I generally try to balance things and pick something that I like, has a strong theme, and is at least somewhat competitive. I'm currently working on an Imperial Guard army, with 100 guardsmen, 5 leman russ, and a Shadowsword. I really like tanks, and thematically it works as a guard army (a company of tanks and a company of infantry). I think it will be at least somewhat competitive. Is it the most WAAC army out there? No, I'm sure there are armies that will have their way with it. But it's not a pushover army either.

Back in 5th edition I had a similar army, Codex Marines. I don't recall exactly what was in it, but the theme was mechanized, and I took a good balance of MSU things like las/plas razorbacks, and assault terminators in a land raider. Wasn't super overpowered, but thematically it worked as an entirely mechanized force and I liked how it looked.

Honestly? I Try for a mix. I have some units I like and I try to at least not piss all over the background material like a full-blown WAAC list (the kind that doesn't give a damn about the background or feel of the army), but since I want to win so I don't say screw this and look elsewhere, I give at least some eye to effectiveness.

I play Eldar. According to Teh Interwebz, they're the same thing.

WAAC is tied to FOTM in the current paradigm, so I kind of feel it's tied to an available time and money mechanism.

WAAC IS the army I like. Or at least armies that function. That way i can avoid the whole 'wahhh! How did my randon assortment of models not beat an army with some thought put into it?!' Problem that a lot of people seem to have.

Bharring wrote:
I play Eldar. According to Teh Interwebz, they're the same thing.

I play Marines. According to the internet all my lists are "play what I like" lists because Marines are a garbage fire and there isn't a WAAC list in the whole codex.

People that tend to use WAAC as a pejorative are the same kind of people who get mad when their all basic tactical marine army loses to a tank they can't figure out why they couldn't make "do the explody thing".

Play the game however you'd like. You're not a bad person for enjoying playing a tactical game, and you're not worse for ware in the hobby for playing with random stuff and have a good time.

Exist within the hobby and respect one another.

I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

As competitive as I can with the models I prefer and are painted, usually. But what I collect and paint is usually mono-dex, no FW. But I also paint the units I think will work first.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
How do you make an army? Is it a WAAC army or an army you like?

I hear people say some of the choices I make for my necron army aren't good because "That unit iz t3h suxx0r5!" Well, Maybe I just like that unit, or I feel that another unit isn't fitting with the army background I created.

Plus as I see it,. one new rules change can nerf a WAAC army at GWs whim, but the army I like will always be the army I like.

It's not mutually exclusive.

I like my armies; and they're fairly strong. Efforts have definitely been made to give me strong odds of winning against most opponents I'm likely to face.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list. But I also don't go looking for games against those kinds of people, and I avoid tournaments. People can play as they like.

That being said, the game needs to be built and refined around WAAC players, because they are the ones who will invariably find all the loop holes and abusive problem areas.

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

*time includes opponent’s movement of models*

Either select a theme (say, Eldar Aspects) or just start with units I like the models/conversions of.
Generally, non-troops/non-transports are 0-1 unless strictly necessary (like, say, 3 tempestus officers in some stormie list).
Actual models depend on the army. Eldar are built as they are.
Guard is as-is pus some conversion.
Chaos or Orks (the latter for a friend) are heavily converted.
No WAAC all, but still I want a tight ruleset and usable units. Time is precious, both for me and my opponent.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list. But I also don't go looking for games against those kinds of people, and I avoid tournaments. People can play as they like.

That being said, the game needs to be built and refined around WAAC players, because they are the ones who will invariably find all the loop holes and abusive problem areas.

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

I pretty much have to build fairly WAAC if I want to have a snowball's chance in hell of competing in my cutthroat local meta. I can tone it down as required for casual games with the non-tourney players, but if I want to not embarass myself in our local tournaments I have to come up with some nasty stuff. I still don't do as well as I'd like to, but that's because I need to tighten up my game.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list. But I also don't go looking for games against those kinds of people, and I avoid tournaments. People can play as they like.

That being said, the game needs to be built and refined around WAAC players, because they are the ones who will invariably find all the loop holes and abusive problem areas.

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

Shout it again to the people in the back.

People generally conflate "Warhammer as a competition" and "Win at all costs" as being the same thing.

If the event has a buy-in, I will bring the most ruthless list I can compile which has Sisters as the primary.

If it's a casual event, I ease up on the throttle.

Some people assume win at all costs means a willingness to cheat. Whereas turning up to a fun local tourney with an optimised Imperial/Eldar Soup is just taking things "too seriously".

I am probably in the bad corner because I like mathhammer. I like crunching numbers through excel spreadsheets to try and identify "good" and "bad" units. I also like to look for odd synergies/combos that might be overlooked.

With that said I play with a fair number of people who don't play the game as seriously as that. If I turn up with an optimised list played close to correctly, and they turn up with a pile of garbage played wrong, the result isn't a very fun game. So I am trying to focus more on having an army that looks great on the table rather than necesarilly being the most optimised units. Its something of a challenge though.

I don't build an army, if I'm honest. I like Eldar. I have since I started playing in 2nd edition. I more or less collect and paint all the units in the codex that I enjoy or can find reasonably priced. I never buy according to a list. I may adjust an occasional weapon (RIP scatter lasers on war walkers), or add a model or two to a squad on occasion - but I just collect "the army", not "an army". My purchases are never in line with what I want to build in a list. It's just "that's cool, I'll try it".

The result is I have 6,000+ points of both of my primary armies. I try to take different styled lists almost every time I play - often tailoring the list to the story in our narrative campaign. I dislike mathhammer immensely but that stems from being a military history fan, and a historical wargamer alongside things like 40K.

I've had very serious and conflict-intensive jobs. Wargaming is a hobby. It's about rolling dice and having fun with my buddies. Turning that into a competitive environment is pointless to me.

Depends where im playing and who im playing, as it should

 niv-mizzet wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

*time includes opponent’s movement of models*

I stand by my hyperbole.

Whatever the minis game I'm playing, within the confines of the rules I build my armies using the units/models I like 1st. Everything else is secondary.

I generally pick a playstyle, theme, or strategy i want to go for and build my lists and collection around fitting that desired outcome. I might be more on the "play to win" side of things when optimizing the list but I still stick to my original goal.

Example being my favorite Ork list in 7th. Goal was to use a Blitz Brigade and Flyers to have only an AV14 wall turn 1 and have turn 2 when everything is in charge range plus most of the flyers should be on the board providing fire support for the ground forces. End result is still the original goal of 5 Battlewagons and 3 Dakkajets but its loaded with Tankbustas, Boyz, Meganobz, MA Warboss, (all fairly optimal options for 7th) with the only non optimal pick being Flash Gitz because I love my gitz and they synergize really well with Blitz Brigade.

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

No, you're just playing a real 40k game with real armies.

I tend to take what I fancy models wise, without putting too much thought into overall efficiency.

Part of the fun for me is finding out how to make it work for myself. I'm stubborn like that!

Sometimes I end up with a killer army by accident. Other times I really need to sing for my supper, or think about swapping out certain units which just aren't working out.

Either way, so long as my opponent has an enjoyable game, regardless of outcome, I reckon I've got a given army about right.

I'm currently trying to fill out a Dark Angels Brigade starting with the troops choices: 3 five man scout squads (1 with sniper rifles) and 3 ten man tacticals (none of that combat squad nonsense) led by a librarian & a lieutenant. My next additions will be Rhinos, devastators and assault squads. So I guess I fall in the WAAC category.

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

What part of my paragraph insulted you? The part where I said that I personally don’t like playing against WAAC players? Or the part where I said people can play as they like, but I don’t want to play that way?

And I know they aren’t the same thing, but WAAC players also have optimized lists.

Maybe you’ve been accused of being a WAAC player and now have a complex about it?

Well the insulting part probably comes from the fact that some people read WAAC like some other people read nationalist.

I don't think it is possible to build anything close to a WAAC army with my faction. I do try to do something with it, and I sure don't like the way it plays right now. When I was starting people told me the army is full of elite psykers with good melee and shoting weapons. What they did not tell me is that this was only in the army fluff not in the game play the army actually has.

To a degree unless someone is playing crazy stuff like open or narrative, I can't imagine someone building or trying to build a functioning army, as long the goal is to play the game of course. I have no problem with someone making an army that looks good, because they like to paint and don't care if the army is even legal.