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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 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.

It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 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.

It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).

Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.

From an Eldar pov, the WAAC (btw, I don't like the term WAAC, but I think people at least know that it has a negative connotation towards a player and that is what we're addressing) list does not have to be Wave Serpent spam, in fact, an army full of DAs and Wave serpents would be great for Biel Tan. It's when you start adding the jetseer council with it (should be reserved for Saimm Hann style lists only...like a dataslate), small jet bike sqds to grab objectives (that's a rules flaw though, objectives should never be allowed to be claimed when a unit ran/flat out/turbo boosted). Stick with the fluff and grab an Autarch as an HQ or maybe an Avatar. The WAAC list is when someone picks only the units he knows has a massive force multiplier for it's point cost and has no thought about a "theme" to his list at all. The thing is, if going to a tourny or if your gaming group is that kind of group, jump in and join the fun. It's not wrong to play that way, but not everyone agrees and it's about finding a like-minded group to play in a way that gels with your mindset.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 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.

It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).

Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.

The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 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.

It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).

Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.

The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).

So, why should the other player weaken his list instead of you making yours better? Wait, some armies have distinct advantages over others. A Tau army is much stronger than a BA army and it's not much fun to play. Is that either players' fault? Nope. It's the rules and GW's codexes.

MWHistorian, 100% in agreement.

Unless we have a set of written restrictions (i.e., concrete definitions of what is allowed or is not allowed - also known as RULES - the things that GW is supposedly selling you in those insanely expensive books...), there's no way to fairly constrain armies.



I should add that I own 8 5th edition codices and the rulebook. I bought the rules for every edition of 40k from Rogue Trader up to 5th edition. I flat out refused to buy 6th edition and 7th edition rule sets because they are fething garbage, and I refuse to spend my money on fething garbage. Especially when it's overpriced garbage.

When they stop charging $100 for poorly written rules, I will resume buying GW rule sets. Until they start writing good rules, feth them. I'd rather give my money to other miniatures companies, watch companies, and gun companies who actually put a bit of thought into their product. Lately, GW rules have had a very "intern-written" characteristic and their digital products are complete garbage. I've seen undergraduate students submit better assignments for introductory soft science courses.

I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.

3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?

Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.

Was that so hard?

I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.

3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?

Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.

Was that so hard?

I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?

That would make it hard to sell every Tau player 3+ Riptides.

Obviously, but I don't care about GW, I care about the players.

Plus, recycle argument about how GW put out a load of gakky models that do nothing and sell low volumes (Vespids, Space Pope and Sniper Drones for example.)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 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.

It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).

Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.

The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).

So, why should the other player weaken his list instead of you making yours better? Wait, some armies have distinct advantages over others. A Tau army is much stronger than a BA army and it's not much fun to play. Is that either players' fault? Nope. It's the rules and GW's codexes.

You shouldn't, GW should make rules better. I'm weird. I have this thing, where it's the mentality behind it. I'm fine with what some people define as WAAC. It's hard to difine WAAC for me, bad sportsmanship would probebly be a good answer. If you delight in other people not havinhg fun while playing you, thatn that's WAAC to me. Otherwise no, it's just playing the game. Most of this you can just put down to me writing the first thing that pops into my mind .

If we are to be playing fluffily, how come we have the All Mighty Powerful Space Marines, hiding and cowering in vehicles then?

Nuff said. People play to win even if they "claim" it's a fluffy list. People may make fluffy lists, but they don't play it fluffy.

My group went the competitive route which was fun until the battle started. Then we realized its just expensive time wasting.

So instead we treat it like a roleplay. Still trying to win but more concerned about playing to character. So my commander is a huge fan of bayonets and rank fire. So my men will frequently be found in ranks advancing while firing. It has the added bonus of leaving me with many casualties at the end of my games. Nothing is better than seeing 6 men out of 50 back to back on an objective firing away at whats left at the enemy remnants.

To me and some of the players im with, this is whats important. One Eldar player refuses to change his tactics for the better because Elves (like him funnily enough) are stubborn. Adds a twist to the game which we find fun. He also always uses his allies as a meat shield. After all its what eldar do. Even if his allies are human players.

To us both sides should play out like opposing characters in a film. Both want to win, a plot is involved and there are personality traits in play. It usually works out.

There are still flaws of course, but they are very mitigated and can easily be fixed within (sorry for this) the forging of the narrative by simply getting into the fun of it. Playing it out like some movie. Not everyone's cup of tea, but the same can be said about everything.

We still find some fluffy lists awful, (the old penal horde for example) but we have found there are hundreds of ways to play the game and have yet to meet someone who will and only will play one type of list. (except the Eldar player sometimes).

It takes imagination and understanding to create a cool game when using 40k. Which many dont want to do. Luckily we live in a time where the wargaming options are huge and still growing. So there is no need to put up with it if you dont want to. As usual its also dependent on the gamers around you.

It shouldn't require that much work on the part of the players to make fun and fluffy, and fun and balanced, lists.

While taking Units A, B and C out of Codex: Blue Army Guys and putting them up against Units D, E and F out of Codex: Red Army Guys, might not work out very well in one direction or the other, because of variations in the troop types (maybe A, B and C are variants of Tanks, and D, E and F are all support medics, who knows?) there needs to be both internal and external balance to Codices that permits just about any list to have at least a decent chance at beating any other list.

Sure, certain specific lists might be more challenging than others, but as the game is currently written, there are lists from certain Codices that are basically incapable of winning a game against any other Codex... sometimes even its own.

This is entirely, 100%, GW's fault.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).

What if my list is bad in general , but hard counter to your list. Like nids were demons at some point.
Or what if the weapons that I use in my squads are normal against all list , but super effective against the list you run . My AM runs a lot of plasma and meltaguns , a terminator only army would have huge problems with me.
Am I waac , if my AM list runs an aegis or if I put my chimeras on a landing pad ?

So, why should the other player weaken his list instead of you making yours better? Wait, some armies have distinct advantages over others. A Tau army is much stronger than a BA army and it's not much fun to play. Is that either players' fault? Nope. It's the rules and GW's codexes.

Probably because it is better to make other people pay their cash for having fun , then investing your own money in to it. Let the eldar player buy 5000 points of models and try to build a list which will make you happy , while you buy 1500 points and spend cash on other stuff . I
I could imagine that with a high start and end cost hobby like w40k , that could be well possible.

 Swastakowey wrote:
So instead we treat it like a roleplay. Still trying to win but more concerned about playing to character. So my commander is a huge fan of bayonets and rank fire. So my men will frequently be found in ranks advancing while firing. It has the added bonus of leaving me with many casualties at the end of my games. Nothing is better than seeing 6 men out of 50 back to back on an objective firing away at whats left at the enemy remnants.

Ok, so my commander is a huge fan of tanks, and leads a very fluffy IG armored company. Lots of tanks and supporting aircraft, few/no infantry units. By playing to character I've created a list that many opponents, especially opponents that are committed to playing to their own characters instead of just spamming anti-tank units, will struggle to deal with. Now to make an enjoyable game I have to abandon the character I've created and design a list based around power level instead of fluff.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
So instead we treat it like a roleplay. Still trying to win but more concerned about playing to character. So my commander is a huge fan of bayonets and rank fire. So my men will frequently be found in ranks advancing while firing. It has the added bonus of leaving me with many casualties at the end of my games. Nothing is better than seeing 6 men out of 50 back to back on an objective firing away at whats left at the enemy remnants.

Ok, so my commander is a huge fan of tanks, and leads a very fluffy IG armored company. Lots of tanks and supporting aircraft, few/no infantry units. By playing to character I've created a list that many opponents, especially opponents that are committed to playing to their own characters instead of just spamming anti-tank units, will struggle to deal with. Now to make an enjoyable game I have to abandon the character I've created and design a list based around power level instead of fluff.

Why?

just tell the other player you are a tank commander and ask if they wanna play? If not find someone who is game?

Or arrange it in advance and find someone interested and wants to face such a list. Or compromise so you both have a what you like. Of course if you have all tanks he will need anti tank. This is the case in all games I play.

Its not just list either. Its how you play (which is a bigger factor at times).

You can also set up the game so his men are ambushing your tank column (set up the scenario and map for this) and air support will come on a later turn. Im sure if you made this scenario and then asked someone they would say yes. To me that sounds like a lot of fun. You still get to play with your tanks and aircraft and he is still able to try eliminate you due to the ambush.

Its not just about fluffy lists, you can play fluffily and create an awesome game too. As I said, imagination and creativity.

But no one aside for people who have large collections or play armies that do well against tanks without buying extra models, are going to be willing to play against an unbound or FW tank army.

Same with special scenarios ,unless it is in a rule book , few people will even consider playing it . Unless it gives them the edge they will never accept it . And for the tank player what fun is there in someone blowing up 3/4 of his army turn one , unless he steals initiative.

Makumba wrote:
But no one aside for people who have large collections or play armies that do well against tanks without buying extra models, are going to be willing to play against an unbound or FW tank army.

Same with special scenarios ,unless it is in a rule book , few people will even consider playing it . Unless it gives them the edge they will never accept it . And for the tank player what fun is there in someone blowing up 3/4 of his army turn one , unless he steals initiative.

You write the scenario to fit the situation... to avoid a dull game simply say ambushing player starts first (sorry i thought the term ambush would suggest the ambushing player initiates the game) so eliminated part of the problem. I have never had a problem with playing exciting missions to fit the armies, even against someone new in my area. Just be open to experiment and change. Its how things get better.

 Swastakowey wrote:
just tell the other player you are a tank commander and ask if they wanna play? If not find someone who is game?

I thought "play in-character" was supposed to be a solution? It sounds like playing in-character doesn't actually solve any balance issues, since this is exactly the same thing I'd have to do if I just built a list based on what wins games effectively.

You can also set up the game so his men are ambushing your tank column (set up the scenario and map for this) and air support will come on a later turn. Im sure if you made this scenario and then asked someone they would say yes. To me that sounds like a lot of fun. You still get to play with your tanks and aircraft and he is still able to try eliminate you due to the ambush.

So now I have to start designing custom missions to compensate for balance issues? I guess that means no more pickup games, since a good asymmetrical mission requires a lot of advance design work with two specific armies in mind. I really don't see how this solves the balance problem better than, say, playing at 1250 vs. 1500 points with lists designed purely around winning games.

Have you tried it? Or are you simply so against it that you wont try make friends with randoms at your store/club and start trying new things out. because I can do it with new people... I can do it easily... and it solves most (I do say most) of our problems. Nothing works for everyone, doesnt mean something should dismiss it because it doesnt suit your idea of a good game or because it doesnt 100% fix something you are having a problem with. I also never said it would fix anything, i said it would make the game more enjoyable or fix most problems. You dont have to start designing anything. You can simply play asymmetrical missions. Im sure the tank list wont be at 100% efficiency with a decent map and terrain on the field. Just works for me thats all (thought that was made clear in my first post)

I simply suggested ways of making the game more enjoyable. Dont like them? Well then find your own way (or none at all). Works for me and most gamers I meet. But as I said its all dependent on the gamers around you.

Anyways I dont like you. Even when I agree with you (which is often believe it or not), im just gonna block you (again).

Yes there are problems, but to me they are very easy fixes. So I threw a suggestion out there. Nothing more nothing less.

Yet again, Swastakowey, you fail to grasp the simple fact that if the players have to modify the game to make it fair, it is indicative of an endemic issue with the game.

It's no doubt everyone else's fault but GW.

 azreal13 wrote:
Yet again, Swastakowey, you fail to grasp the simple fact that if the players have to modify the game to make it fair, it is indicative of an endemic issue with the game.

It's no doubt everyone else's fault but GW.

I didnt blame anyone. I simply put suggestions forward on how to improve the game and how it works for us. Lets face it, no one else is gonna do it. Essentially this is what the article is about, they arent gonna fix the game, so why make it worse?

You didn't blame anyone in this thread. Such blatant head fethery as the time you tried to twist it that it was our fault 40K was terrible for not testing it out before buying it will live long in the memory.

You might be unaware, but "suggesting ways people can have more fun" can, if not approached and phrased carefully, just come across as patronising, condescending, white knightery.

There are many players who are more than capable of modifying the game to suit their purposes, and I'm sure many that do, the argument is that this should be a voluntary, not necessary action.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Have you tried it?

Of course I have. I've played story-based games, and they usually had more balance issues than normal games since there were now mission design problems on top of the list balance problems. And this was in the context of an ongoing story-based campaign, the exact situation that should be perfect for a "roleplay more" solution.

As for pickup games, no, it just doesn't work that way. If you show up on 40k night you don't have time to exchange army lists and fluff, come up with a scenario that is balanced and fits the story of both armies, and play the game before the store closes. You just bring an army, find an opponent, and hope you can finish a whole game before you have to leave. Nobody shows up early enough for advance planning with their whole collection of models available to make a perfect scenario-based list.

I also never said it would fix anything, i said it would make the game more enjoyable or fix most problems.

Makes perfect sense to me.

You dont have to start designing anything. You can simply play asymmetrical missions.

Except you do, because these asymmetrical story-based missions don't exist yet. If you want to play an ambush mission then you need to invent rules for it. And if you want your mission to be more interesting than "you get a free turn of shooting before my models can act" you're going to have to spend some time on that design work, make sure both players bring appropriate models, etc.

Yes there are problems, but to me they are very easy fixes. So I threw a suggestion out there. Nothing more nothing less.

Sorry, but "pretend the problems don't exist and don't try to win the game" isn't a solution. The problem here isn't players having the wrong attitude, it's the fact that GW publishes garbage and expects their customers to pretend that it's "forging a narrative".

 azreal13 wrote:
You didn't blame anyone in this thread. Such blatant head fethery as the time you tried to twist it that it was our fault 40K was terrible for not testing it out before buying it will live long in the memory.

You might be unaware, but "suggesting ways people can have more fun" can, if not approached and phrased carefully, just come across as patronising, condescending, white knightery.

There are many players who are more than capable of modifying the game to suit their purposes, and I'm sure many that do, the argument is that this should be a voluntary, not necessary action.

I do think people should always make sure that what they buy will suit them before they finish the purchase. Its pretty common sense to me. You buy crap expect crap.

I thought I phrased it fine, if you are offended im sorry, but you seem easily offended so well all I can say is sorry.

I never made an argument, you did. I agree. It shouldn't be necessary. It isnt either (unless you want to). Its not everyone's cup of tea. Thankfully there are many games out there now that dont require any modifications as its got it all covered. Personally I like that 40k doesnt fill in these gaps, because if they did it will more than likely suck anyway. Id rather just fill in the gaps myself. But thats me.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
You didn't blame anyone in this thread. Such blatant head fethery as the time you tried to twist it that it was our fault 40K was terrible for not testing it out before buying it will live long in the memory.

You might be unaware, but "suggesting ways people can have more fun" can, if not approached and phrased carefully, just come across as patronising, condescending, white knightery.

There are many players who are more than capable of modifying the game to suit their purposes, and I'm sure many that do, the argument is that this should be a voluntary, not necessary action.

I do think people should always make sure that what they buy will suit them before they finish the purchase. Its pretty common sense to me. You buy crap expect crap.

I thought I phrased it fine, if you are offended im sorry, but you seem easily offended so well all I can say is sorry.

I never made an argument, you did. I agree. It shouldn't be necessary. It isnt either (unless you want to). Its not everyone's cup of tea. Thankfully there are many games out there now that dont require any modifications as its got it all covered. Personally I like that 40k doesnt fill in these gaps, because if they did it will more than likely suck anyway. Id rather just fill in the gaps myself. But thats me.

And he still doesn't understand that some people don't have the luxury of a like-minded group of friends to design neat little scenarios to compensate for poor rules and lack of balance. IN close groups, sure, do whatever you want. You could always do that anyway. But in pick up games, it's not really possible. I don't know anyone that carries around their entire collection so we can barter and discuss what's fun and fair.

But why dont you make friends with people at the store? I dont see how after a week or 2 of games there you wont know the regulars and start to form your own groups? I go to a GW store once a year on the same date, and every year I see the same group of people (give or take a couple). I am genuinely curious as to why this is impossible to do.

 Swastakowey wrote:
But why dont you make friends with people at the store? I dont see how after a week or 2 of games there you wont know the regulars and start to form your own groups? I go to a GW store once a year on the same date, and every year I see the same group of people (give or take a couple). I am genuinely curious as to why this is impossible to do.

If two players bring armies, how many army combinations do they need to bring along to discuss and accommodate each others armies?
Does the IG player need to bring their all tank army, and a ton of infantry, and fliers so that they can work out with a random opponent what would be fair for that particular match up when one player could bring a lot of antitank and another a lot of anti infantry?
What if a player only has 1500 points of models total and wants to play a random game, is it reasonable for the other player to have enough to adjust their list to make the match up fair?
If they discuss a special scenario, who decides what is fair if there is a disagreement?
Should every pick up game be at risk of the players not being able to work around balance issues in the game and being unable to play a game at all?

gak, I had those problems when I was in a club and some players bitched and moaned about any army their particular list wasn't designed to handle. Yes, the other player was wrong for bringing tanks when they didn't have a lot of AT on a random game.

Yes, expecting every game to be a negotiation just to have a perception of balance is too much to ask when other games can sort out a rough level of balance for pickup games. If balance doesn't matter, why do unit even have points for things like wargear when that level if detail is already unbalanced?

I can see it being an issue for a few weeks but once you start finding the players you enjoy facing and start to make friends, surely you will start to form a group and be able to try things. With friends you work this out like you work anything with friends out. How do friends decide where to go? How do they decide when? and so on. Its just the same when wargaming. I do not understand how its so hard for pick up gamers to just make friends with the store regulars and go from there.

For example you said how many armies should someone bring. Its simple, after a few weeks of gaming you get some of their contact details and then, you txt/email etc one and ask if he wants to play a game of 40k, he goes yes (or no, in which case ask someone else) then quickly arrange roughly what each guy is gonna take. Then you head to the store already prepared to face your enemy who is prepared to face you.

Works the same everywhere I have gamed. A few games to break the ice, then the rest is easy going as you start to fit in with their styles and they take on your style and so on. Unless you refuse to get to know anyone you face, then yea every game is gonna be blind sailing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.

3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?

Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.

Was that so hard?

I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?

You are so right, and it's a GW Attitude that's persisted for a long time. Even the old article doesn't lay the blame at GW's feet, but on the player who "abuses" their books. I can't understand how anybody still believes this "writing rules is HARD" whine that GW rules writers have. You can dictate how many marines are in a squad, and how many guardsmen can fit in a Chimera, but suddenly it's impossible to tell someone that Riptides are limited to 0-1 (or whatever). Man up, you wimps!