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.

Hi Dakka,

Whilst digging through my old White Dwarf's in preparation for my summer of 2nd Ed I came across this article in WD#200 which, while old, I feel is still pretty relevant to a lot of discussions on list building and said 'abuse' of powerful units which most lists continue to provide. Personally I agree with the sentiments expressed within it, but what does Dakka think? As an aside to the article I put in a quick poll to ask why most people choose to play 40k...



To put it another way do you think there's such a thing as the right 'spirit' to play 40k in?

There is the right spirit to play 40k for you and your gaming group.

Just like there is the right spirit to play RPGs, board games, and anything else in your group.

If your group likes knock-down, drag-out ultra-competitive play, enjoy it!

If you'd rather scale that down, enjoy it!

This vote needs to be multiple choice.

I do agree with Kronk. There are a lot of ways to play this game. I personally like a fluff-driven, semi competitive game. Others want a more hard core, no holds barred game. Both are valid ways of playing.

 Nevelon wrote:
This vote needs to be multiple choice.

I do agree with Kronk. There are a lot of ways to play this game. I personally like a fluff-driven, semi competitive game. Others want a more hard core, no holds barred game. Both are valid ways of playing.

Pretty much this.
I need the fluff, but I also need the game. If one element doesn't work then its a 'no-go' for me.

I agree with the article's sentiments 100%.

Multiple choice added.

I agree it's all about reaching an accord with fellow players and most of all having fun with it, whatever edition and however you wish to play. I think that those with a more competitive mindset sometimes miss the point is all, which is what this article expresses pretty well IMHO.

You can't blame the players for playing a list some people think isn't within some arbitrary 'spirit of the game'.

1, 2 and 5. First I was hooked up by the scenario (played FFG RPGs and, even earlier, played DoW); the game came second, with the launch of 6th. Never paid any attention to the game, but a fresh edition looked like the best time to enter the game. Third, the miniatures looked (and still look) quite cool (much better than the D&D ones I was used to)

 Blacksails wrote:
You can't blame the players for playing a list some people think isn't within some arbitrary 'spirit of the game'.

This. Who said Serpent Spam isn't fluffy? What do you expect those pretty little space elves to do, walk everywhere?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You can't blame the players for playing a list some people think isn't within some arbitrary 'spirit of the game'.

This. Who said Serpent Spam isn't fluffy? What do you expect those pretty little space elves to do, walk everywhere?

Pfft, walk.

They prance.

Hosting tournaments and seeing people play is fun. Re-balancing the game is fun too. I like productive conversations.

(Sigh) people still think that playing to win=WAAC TFG.

 Veteran of The Long War wrote:
(Sigh) people still think that playing to win=WAAC TFG.

Its a way to shift blame from bad rules.

Not only that, but the people who think that a fluffy list somehow going to be perfectly balanced to play against another fluffy list.

Eldar serpent spam is about as fluffy as you can get. So is tank heavy IG, and that's no slouch on the table either.

Then again, playing a 10th company marine force is fluffy and astoundingly awful on the table top.

The thing is, that whether you're playing a serpent spam list or a 10th company scout list, you're never playing the game wrong, or playing it outside the spirit of the game.

I hate the way people try and divide players into neat little boxes labelled with 'competitive' and 'casual'. What do they even mean anymore? I enjoy playing silly lists, campaigns, and rock hard lists, sometimes more fluffy, sometimes less fluffy. I enjoy tournaments because I like good games, and the ability to play against a number of opponents with painted armies on good looking tables. Am I competitive or casual?

Is it defined by my army list? If its strong is it automatically not casual, regardless of its fluff factor?

And who defines the spirit of the game?

There is no right or wrong, or better or worse. There are just players, who like models/concepts/themes/fluff/builds and play the game in a way they clearly enjoy playing. No one is missing the point, and to imply as such is not a little insulting. If the game permits completely unfluffy combinations or ridiculously broken combinations, it isn't the players to blame for using them; its the game and consequently the game designers.

Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.

 Blacksails wrote:
Not only that, but the people who think that a fluffy list somehow going to be perfectly balanced to play against another fluffy list.

Eldar serpent spam is about as fluffy as you can get. So is tank heavy IG, and that's no slouch on the table either.

Then again, playing a 10th company marine force is fluffy and astoundingly awful on the table top.

The thing is, that whether you're playing a serpent spam list or a 10th company scout list, you're never playing the game wrong, or playing it outside the spirit of the game.

I hate the way people try and divide players into neat little boxes labelled with 'competitive' and 'casual'. What do they even mean anymore? I enjoy playing silly lists, campaigns, and rock hard lists, sometimes more fluffy, sometimes less fluffy. I enjoy tournaments because I like good games, and the ability to play against a number of opponents with painted armies on good looking tables. Am I competitive or casual?

Is it defined by my army list? If its strong is it automatically not casual, regardless of its fluff factor?

And who defines the spirit of the game?

There is no right or wrong, or better or worse. There are just players, who like models/concepts/themes/fluff/builds and play the game in a way they clearly enjoy playing. No one is missing the point, and to imply as such is not a little insulting. If the game permits completely unfluffy combinations or ridiculously broken combinations, it isn't the players to blame for using them; its the game and consequently the game designers.

I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

This sums up the way I see it quite nicely. The battle should begin when both sides are deployed, not before. Really, it's highly unlikely, fluff-wise, that a general would have all his best units ready to fight at one point when a battle begins.

As soon as the dice start rolling, I'm in it to win it, but I prefer winning with an army rather than building an army to win.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.

When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.

The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.

When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.

The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.

So basically what you are saying is - when you build a, excuse the term, "WAAC" list - you are doing so entirely by accident or in ignorance of how it will affect the game and your opponent's enjoyment? OR you are saying that because the laws of men (and 40K) allow you to be a jerk - that you are entitled to be one?

 Gunzhard wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.

When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.

The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.

So basically what you are saying is - when you build a, excuse the term, "WAAC" list - you are doing so entirely by accident or in ignorance of how it will affect the game and your opponent's enjoyment? OR you are saying that because the laws of men (and 40K) allow you to be a jerk - that you are entitled to be one?

Who's definition of WAAC do we use? Yours might differ. But Nuggz was talking about the far more common gray areas that still lead to gross imbalances of army strength.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.

When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.

The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.

So basically what you are saying is - when you build a, excuse the term, "WAAC" list - you are doing so entirely by accident or in ignorance of how it will affect the game and your opponent's enjoyment? OR you are saying that because the laws of men (and 40K) allow you to be a jerk - that you are entitled to be one?

Wow...thanks for the ad hominem attack. Anyway...

No, what I'm saying is that you've offered no concrete definition of what types of units are acceptable or unacceptable. In this situation, it's inevitable that if your opponent wins, you will consider his list unacceptable. From the other point of view, how is an opponent supposed to know what you're OK with, and what you're going to cry about?

Army lists are concrete. Points limits are concrete. You're calling me a jerk for using units in my codex? Got news for you buddy - that's a very whiny TFG attitude right there.

Well first, I am certainly not calling you a jerk - my apologies if that was implied.

My point is - just because you (a random person) CAN be a jerk, doesn't mean you are entitled to (or should) be one.

And my second point is - regarding "whos definition of acceptable or unacceptable" ...I don't think anyone here builds a "WAAC" list without knowing it's a WAAC list.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well first, I am certainly not calling you a jerk - my apologies if that was implied.

My point is - just because you (a random person) CAN be a jerk, doesn't mean you are entitled to (or should) be one.

And my second point is - regarding "whos definition of acceptable or unacceptable" ...I don't think anyone here builds a "WAAC" list without knowing it's a WAAC list.

Define a WAAC list, please so we can all be on the same page.

Oh boy, "WAAC list" is suddenly some obscure concept that you've never heard of?

Some examples over the years; the 3rd edition Blood Angels Rhino Rush list... the 5th edition LeafBlower, or GK spam... the 6th edition Tau-Dar list... Riptide spam, Wave Serpent spam etc etc...

What if that WAAC list also happens to be a list filled with models the person likes that fits a theme they enjoy that is also perfectly fluffy? You're going to assume that person is a jerk and WAAC douche canoe? Because of a list?

No, that's the kind of attitude this game doesn't need. People trying to establish what is a more correct way to build a list is far worse than the occasional gimmicky broken list.

Blaming the players for poor balance is being completely dishonest. There's no right or wrong way to build a list, or even a better or worse way, as you seem to be implying.

Amazingly enough, if the game was more balanced, we wouldn't have use these arbitrary notions of WAAC lists.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well first, I am certainly not calling you a jerk - my apologies if that was implied.

My point is - just because you (a random person) CAN be a jerk, doesn't mean you are entitled to (or should) be one.

And my second point is - regarding "whos definition of acceptable or unacceptable" ...I don't think anyone here builds a "WAAC" list without knowing it's a WAAC list.

No worries.

I guess my question is - from where do we get a real definition of WAAC that standardizes across all players, in all situations?

At one extreme, you could argue that WAAC is more about the player's attitude than the list. At the other extreme, you could argue that using any competitive units is WAAC. How many Riptides is a Tau player allowed to run before it becomes WAAC? How many Heldrakes can a Chaos player use? How many Wave Serpents or Wraith Knights should an Eldar player be allowed to have?

Unless we can agree on some kind of concrete value set moving forward, it seems like we're setting ourselves up for a situation in which player A wins, and player B assumes that player A only won because he didn't follow the unwritten rules of "don't be a douchebag while writing your army list"

 Gunzhard wrote:
Oh boy, "WAAC list" is suddenly some obscure concept that you've never heard of?

Some examples over the years; the 3rd edition Blood Angels Rhino Rush list... the 5th edition LeafBlower, or GK spam... the 6th edition Tau-Dar list... Riptide spam, Wave Serpent spam etc etc...

Those are examples, not a definition.
What consitutes Riptide spam? Is two OP? Three?
Why wouldn't Eldar use Wave Serpents? That's they're primary transport? How much is spam?
Define WAAC list so we can understand where you're coming from.

In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.

Nice article. Another sign that the WD these days are a pale shadow of what they used to be in the past.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.

That sounds more like a mentality thing. My all biker waver serpent army might be my favorite fluffy list ever. Is it WAAC?
Since concensus on this isn't going to be close to universal, that's why a balanced game would benefit everyone.