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.

 StarTrotter wrote:

4. There is no way you cannot kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts Depends actually. What are the rules for gaunts not in synapse again? Ooooh yeah! Run and hide! Guess what, they either immediately retreat or they head to the best cover possible. They will run for cover if not already in it. You need synapse to make them work but then it's not 2000 points of gaunts is it? Also, never. Eeeeever EVER say there is "no way you can not kill ". We play a game of random dice with very few impossibilities. Also termegaunts can only harm your vehicles in two ways. One, by shooting it with their close range guns. Two, if they pay for upgrades. They are S3 naturally and only get S4 if you buy and upgrade that still relies on charging. Multicharge and you can't. Also you forget your mobile units are zipping around shooting the enemy to death all the while. The model is still always moving 12" don't forget and that's without flatouting. Sure, you might only snapfire that turn but, yet again, so what. It is more important to live than to die.

Nice one. You can only move 12" in one movement phase. You could stay static in the movement phase and flatout in the shooting phase, but that wouldn't bring you out of the threat range.
They would need Synapse, they're not 100% sure to fail the Ld though, so maybe 2k points would be enough
I didn't know that about the S4, apparently my last opponent didn't either. That detail about multicharging I would love to hear more about.

The point is: any S4+ assault unit will wreck those vehicles for a fraction of the point cost, including one with a crappy profile otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
And one little thing. If you play for strategy and tactics (which you can't really do one of those) and are doing that in a horribly imbalanced game, I want to point out that tactics would involve capturing that ruin. Really I'd prefer you respond to my post simply because I pointed out some points that you have missed or chosen to ignore.

Your post is long, disordered and boring.
There was some interesting content to which I reacted. Sorry for the rest.

morgoth wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

4. There is no way you cannot kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts Depends actually. What are the rules for gaunts not in synapse again? Ooooh yeah! Run and hide! Guess what, they either immediately retreat or they head to the best cover possible. They will run for cover if not already in it. You need synapse to make them work but then it's not 2000 points of gaunts is it? Also, never. Eeeeever EVER say there is "no way you can not kill ". We play a game of random dice with very few impossibilities. Also termegaunts can only harm your vehicles in two ways. One, by shooting it with their close range guns. Two, if they pay for upgrades. They are S3 naturally and only get S4 if you buy and upgrade that still relies on charging. Multicharge and you can't. Also you forget your mobile units are zipping around shooting the enemy to death all the while. The model is still always moving 12" don't forget and that's without flatouting. Sure, you might only snapfire that turn but, yet again, so what. It is more important to live than to die.

Nice one. You can only move 12" in one movement phase. You could stay static in the movement phase and flatout in the shooting phase, but that wouldn't bring you out of the threat range.
They would need Synapse, they're not 100% sure to fail the Ld though, so maybe 2k points would be enough
I didn't know that about the S4, apparently my last opponent didn't either. That detail about multicharging I would love to hear more about.

The point is: any S4+ assault unit will wreck those vehicles for a fraction of the point cost, including one with a crappy profile otherwise.

Keep in mind multicharge is when you charge 2 enemy units with one. Not charging 1 enemy unit with two blobs.

Whoa man really 12"? That's nothing to you? That's 12 inches! Most models move 6" per turn. Sacrificing shooting most can move only d6 inches with a few d6+3 inches. Charge is 12" movement. Yes, if you are point black you are at risk but if you move within 24" to fire all of your guns, the enemy has 0 chance of assaulting you unless they are beasts, jump, or cavalry. Even then, it's statistically unlikely, nigh on unrealistic to make a 12" charge.

Disordered? I divided them to the same segments as you did. Any repetition was only because they were the same explanations. And boring? Seriously? All the content is just talking about stats. Regardless, I am still thankful you responded and, at the very least, something has come out of this on the part of multicharges and termegaunts. Be warned, Termegaunts can still purchase an upgrade that gives them S4 so it is still possible (the name is Adrenal Glands I believe)!

All I know is, if I mosey up to a table, and I see 7 necron flyers or 9 Wave Serpents, I won't be playing that guy. You can convince yourself that spamming an overpowered unit is not WAAC, but I am not convinced.

And as far as dedicated transport, the Eldar still have Falcons, which is all there used to be, unless the fact that it has a gun means its not "dedicated" and I mistook what you were saying.

If GW didn't want people to play WAAC lists they should have written rules that prevent it.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
All I know is, if I mosey up to a table, and I see 7 necron flyers or 9 Wave Serpents, I won't be playing that guy. You can convince yourself that spamming an overpowered unit is not WAAC, but I am not convinced.

So at what number of unit X does the list flip over to being WAAC in your eyes? How many of them are okay to field against you, and do you think everyone else would agree with your choice?

Technicly it is 1 , as you can view any unit as WAAC. At the same time you can field any number of bad units or units that your opponent can kill realy well.
I doubt an eldar army full of warwalkers and those web guns would have problems with lets say an IG all infantry list.

In my opinion the simplest way to fix the imbalance would have been simply to do away with the FOC and go to similar point limits like Fantasy.
Setting a 25% minimum points to troops would be much better at balancing out armies. Maximizing points as opposed to models would be much more effective.
The biggest problem would be all the tears about how everyones army has been hurt.

The other simple balancing solution is to play 1500 as opposed to 1800+
Less, well I should say a different, thought is required with the higher point totals because it is all about how much do I want to bring as opposed to which unit do I want to bring more than the other.
Our group rarely plays over 1500 points and the games remain quite even.

This thread is really a cleverly disguised WAAC vs. fluff (or some variation)

The simple answer on these GW articles and threads really is (and I think was the point of the old article)
Police yourselves or your group and play with like minded people and do what you need to enjoy yourselves.
The RIGHT way to play, is the way that everyone is having fun. Power lists are your groups thing, go for it. Fluff, go for it. Somewhere in between.....

The point of these open lists is to really open up the options of variety.
The openness that allows the savvy player to make that 'WAAC" list is the same openness that allows fluff bunnies like myself to make army lists based on stories, themes or battles in that rich background.

 Throt wrote:
In my opinion the simplest way to fix the imbalance would have been simply to do away with the FOC and go to similar point limits like Fantasy.
Setting a 25% minimum points to troops would be much better at balancing out armies. Maximizing points as opposed to models would be much more effective.
The biggest problem would be all the tears about how everyones army has been hurt.

The other simple balancing solution is to play 1500 as opposed to 1800+
Less, well I should say a different, thought is required with the higher point totals because it is all about how much do I want to bring as opposed to which unit do I want to bring more than the other.
Our group rarely plays over 1500 points and the games remain quite even.

This thread is really a cleverly disguised WAAC vs. fluff (or some variation)

The simple answer on these GW articles and threads really is (and I think was the point of the old article)
Police yourselves or your group and play with like minded people and do what you need to enjoy yourselves.
The RIGHT way to play, is the way that everyone is having fun. Power lists are your groups thing, go for it. Fluff, go for it. Somewhere in between.....

The point of these open lists is to really open up the options of variety.
The openness that allows the savvy player to make that 'WAAC" list is the same openness that allows fluff bunnies like myself to make army lists based on stories, themes or battles in that rich background.

Except this doesn't actually solve it. It punishes armies that have sucky troops and is huge to armies with good troops or, as per Eldar, also good transports. And that is the real catch.

But yeah you are right this is really just a disguised debate between the "WAAC" vs. "Fluff" battle. "" because it's not quite that but I'm too lazy to get the real name.

 Elemental wrote:
So at what number of unit X does the list flip over to being WAAC in your eyes?

Whatever number I would bring in my own list +1.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Except this doesn't actually solve it. It punishes armies that have sucky troops and is huge to armies with good troops or, as per Eldar, also good transports. And that is the real catch.

But yeah you are right this is really just a disguised debate between the "WAAC" vs. "Fluff" battle. "" because it's not quite that but I'm too lazy to get the real name.

IMO we need to move pat the idea of 'punished' because every army has the same restrictions.
Are you familiar with how the Fantasy point system works? It also places a maximum on specialty units. Forcing a more balanced army list.
I don't believe there is a catch with the troops.
When you look at the 40k FOC you must take 1 hq and 2 troops minimum. All this does is stresses that minimum. Troops are not typically game breaking units and also tend to be rather balanced across the armies. This is often why troops get fielded less often.
These are the reasons people like high points and Dual FOC. (I am a fan of neither) They maximize the area of their list.
There are 14 different races, not including space marine varieties. An average of (guessing) 14 different unit types in every book. Plus countless weapons. There will always be difficulties.
Eldar will take the 25% troops with the rule or without. IG may take as close to that minimum as possible. Other restrictions keep IG from having 2/3 in tanks or fliers. (examples)
It is the extreme list building that throws the balance out of whack.
IMO the 'problem' doesn't really need to be 'solved'. it is really quite simple to regulate as is..

 Throt wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Except this doesn't actually solve it. It punishes armies that have sucky troops and is huge to armies with good troops or, as per Eldar, also good transports. And that is the real catch.

But yeah you are right this is really just a disguised debate between the "WAAC" vs. "Fluff" battle. "" because it's not quite that but I'm too lazy to get the real name.

IMO we need to move pat the idea of 'punished' because every army has the same restrictions.
Are you familiar with how the Fantasy point system works? It also places a maximum on specialty units. Forcing a more balanced army list.
I don't believe there is a catch with the troops.
When you look at the 40k FOC you must take 1 hq and 2 troops minimum. All this does is stresses that minimum. Troops are not typically game breaking units and also tend to be rather balanced across the armies. This is often why troops get fielded less often.
These are the reasons people like high points and Dual FOC. (I am a fan of neither) They maximize the area of their list.
There are 14 different races, not including space marine varieties. An average of (guessing) 14 different unit types in every book. Plus countless weapons. There will always be difficulties.
Eldar will take the 25% troops with the rule or without. IG may take as close to that minimum as possible. Other restrictions keep IG from having 2/3 in tanks or fliers. (examples)
It is the extreme list building that throws the balance out of whack.
IMO the 'problem' doesn't really need to be 'solved'. it is really quite simple to regulate as is..

Not quite. FW has an Armoured Battlegroup that makes tanks into troops and fliers can be taken in the form of dedicated transports.

The problem is that 40k isn't easy to solve. The only real answer is to tear it down and build it up if one wants balance. The rules are old and outdated with concepts that need massive revisions. It also needs to have a mobilized force that playtests (or gives rules to players to playtest for free) and then respond to the discoveries and then change the point costing, availability, etc of options. Add to that, FAQ would need to be used at a more frequent basis editing mistakes and flaws that upset things.

And thing is, 40k was designed with the FoC in mind. Fantasy wasn't designed with such in mind nor does it have dedicated transports like the Waveserpent nor does it have troops such as nurglings and the sorts.

What I'm pointing out is that the 25% restrictions isn't the perfect cure all. Even with it, Eldar would still be rather good simply out of the fact that their transport is good. Tau too have a very good pick in kroot snipers (although this might be cancelled out with the way snipers were nerfed)

 Throt wrote:
This thread is really a cleverly disguised WAAC vs. fluff (or some variation)

That's because the article is suggesting that there is a way to do things wrong without making it clear what is wrong.

The article even gives examples of things that are wrong like Wolf Guard Terminators with Assault Cannons and Cyclone Launchers being wrong because that kind of squad "isn't in the fluff" or "too many X unit" as being something that isn't fluffy because it is powerful, as if being a good unit is anti-fluff which is the most ridiculous possible interpretation of fluff. This is following the "here's the freedom to build what you want" section talking about how the purpose of leaving it open is so people can build what they want as a theme.

It doesn't make sense that one theme is fluffy and another isn't fluffy entirely based on the strength of the army. The fluffy vs WAAC isn't even the conflict, the conflict is fluffy but weak vs. fluffy but powerful. WAAC is literally Win At All Costs and has to do with the attitude of the player. Is an Eldar player who uses Waveserpents to transport their fast and mobile strikeforce suddenly WAAC instead of fluffy because of how many units of troops they choose to take?

IIRC at one point Necron mobs supported by 3 Monoliths was called WAAC, although if someone played that force today they would probably be lauded as being fluffy just because the list is weaker now than it was then.

 Throt wrote:
IMO we need to move pat the idea of 'punished' because every army has the same restrictions.

Except that's not true at all. Armies with good troops don't see it as a restriction at all because they'll gladly spend more than 25% of their army on troops. Armies with weaker troops are punished severely because they have to fill a larger troops quota before they can take the things they want. And no matter how you look at it imposing limits like that will be seen as punishment because they're not part of the standard rules. If my army is banned under your rules and wasn't blatantly overpowered then I'm not going to have any interest in those rules. And when you impose blanket restrictions across all armies it is inevitable that people with legal armies under the normal rules will be punished under yours.

It also places a maximum on specialty units. Forcing a more balanced army list.

Also not true. It doesn't help balance at all if the overpowered units are troops. For example, Wave Serpents and Necron flyers are troops and could still be spammed. So not only would those lists not suffer any loss in power they'd actually gain in power relative to other lists because those other lists have had relevant options restricted.

These are the reasons people like high points and Dual FOC. (I am a fan of neither) They maximize the area of their list.

Actually in my experience people like high points because they want to play with all of their toys instead of having to leave half of them behind, and most people hate double FOC.

Also, you're badly wrong about low-point games being more balanced. If anything they're less balanced because it's much harder to take a counter to everything when you have so few points available. Bringing a Land Raider or LRBT in a 500 point game usually gives you a unit that your opponent literally can't even attempt to kill. Bringing flyerspam in a 1000 point game is usually an easy win because your opponent can't afford to bring enough AA to be a meaningful threat to your flyers. Etc. Lowering the point level might make specific overpowered 1850 lists stop dominating, but you can almost guarantee that some other overpowered list will replace them.

ignore me

 StarTrotter wrote:

Keep in mind multicharge is when you charge 2 enemy units with one. Not charging 1 enemy unit with two blobs.

Whoa man really 12"? That's nothing to you? That's 12 inches! Most models move 6" per turn. Sacrificing shooting most can move only d6 inches with a few d6+3 inches. Charge is 12" movement. Yes, if you are point black you are at risk but if you move within 24" to fire all of your guns, the enemy has 0 chance of assaulting you unless they are beasts, jump, or cavalry. Even then, it's statistically unlikely, nigh on unrealistic to make a 12" charge.

I don't think there's any misunderstanding about multicharge, other than it does not give a second attack - that was not mentioned in either post but hey...

12" is nothing to me on a 48" x 72" board.
If you kindly deploy in the opposing corner as far as possible, chase me across the diagonal, I will have 90-24" (depth of two armies more or less) > 66" of kite space, which are actually 42" if we consider a 24" threat range that's more or less standard (a few units are more like 18" but lots are above). So 12" buys me three turns of running away, and that's enough to remove enough forces that I can face the rest without risk.
In every other case, there's one to two turns of kiting and that's it.
Against a good deployment, there's at most one turn of running away (at least on 72" side deploy), after which both armies are in range.

12" would be insane in a vacuum, or if there were 500 points on the board. But at 2K-3K it's almost useless imo. Against an unprepared enemy, you may be able to avoid the cornering if you were lucky enough that he stopped 3" away and is no thicker than 4", by jumping above him, and then rotating and flat out 18" ... maybe. But against someone who knows how a Mechdar can be played ? Why would he give you that opportunity ? He can wait a turn while you're blocked there and smash you the next anyway. so why risk losing the contain.
I've been looking at every aspect of the WS during 4th and 5th, and now in 7th, and I don't see how an Eldar Skimmer can avoid contact by turn three.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valhalla130 wrote:
All I know is, if I mosey up to a table, and I see 7 necron flyers or 9 Wave Serpents, I won't be playing that guy. You can convince yourself that spamming an overpowered unit is not WAAC, but I am not convinced.

And as far as dedicated transport, the Eldar still have Falcons, which is all there used to be, unless the fact that it has a gun means its not "dedicated" and I mistook what you were saying.

Which you have decided based on forum talk after taking a defeat because your list could not handle 7 Wave Serpents (you can't fit 9 in 2K, the other two are Fire Prisms) ?
Because if you have a real argument proving that the WS is OP, I would love to hear it.
Nobody on this forum seems to have one so you may even be able to sell it for a high price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:
Technicly it is 1 , as you can view any unit as WAAC. At the same time you can field any number of bad units or units that your opponent can kill realy well.
I doubt an eldar army full of warwalkers and those web guns would have problems with lets say an IG all infantry list.

Actually it may not be that one-sided... Walkers are really fragile and Warp Spiders are designed to take out expensive targets, not really cheap guard stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Throt wrote:

Police yourselves or your group and play with like minded people and do what you need to enjoy yourselves.
The RIGHT way to play, is the way that everyone is having fun. Power lists are your groups thing, go for it. Fluff, go for it. Somewhere in between.....

In other words, play with people who have the same vision of the game. Build your group around that and everyone will be happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 snooggums wrote:

That's because the article is suggesting that there is a way to do things wrong without making it clear what is wrong.

And that's what's wrong.
As a player who likes to play (try to win), I find it extremely offensive when people try to diminish my accomplishments by saying my army is OP, or insult my integrity by saying I'm a WAAC player.

It's not the case and you don't have any right to insult me like that, no matter how high and fluffy you think you are.

"fluff" as I've seen is most of the time an excuse for poor list building and tactical skills, and sometimes a way to say you care more about storytelling than the game.
It doesn't make you or your playing style better, it just makes it different.

I'm not calling anyone a horrible list writer or sore loser, so don't say my list is OP and don't call me a WAAC, thanks.

Walkers are really fragile and Warp Spiders are designed to take out expensive targets, not really cheap guard stuff.

Nine of them in cover do realy well. I wasn't thinking about warp siders , although they would do ok too, but more about artilery eldar have, With multiple farseers , everything would have re-rolls and they could take cheap inquisitorial henchman as power dice generators.
jetbikes for objectives caping and some serpents to dish out even more multi shoting . The walkers alone could be killing blob per turn.

I think WS need a slight buff actually. I know they already see a little competitive play, but it's mostly because they are the least bad option for transporting squads of Dire Avengers. I think they need the rear increased, I keep losing them to squads of S3 models with Furious Charge upgrades that cost half as much as the model itself.

I even somehow once lost 9 Wave Serpents in a turn to 500 pts of non-combat infantry in assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The entire model just screams underpowered.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I think WS need a slight buff actually. I know they already see a little competitive play, but it's mostly because they are the least bad option for transporting squads of Dire Avengers. I think they need the rear increased, I keep losing them to squads of S3 models with Furious Charge upgrades that cost half as much as the model itself.

I even somehow once lost 9 Wave Serpents in a turn to 500 pts of non-combat infantry in assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The entire model just screams underpowered.

I think you just blew up the troll detector...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If GW didn't want people to play WAAC lists they should have written rules that prevent it.

Exactly it silly to allow for "abusive" combos/units then try to make the player feel bad about playing by the rules.

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If GW didn't want people to play WAAC lists they should have written rules that prevent it.

Exactly it silly to allow for "abusive" combos/units then try to make the player feel bad about playing by the rules.

It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.

I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".

morgoth wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If GW didn't want people to play WAAC lists they should have written rules that prevent it.

Exactly it silly to allow for "abusive" combos/units then try to make the player feel bad about playing by the rules.

It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.

I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".

They tried updating the rules on an ongoing basis; trouble was that then, as now, thte majority of players had paper rules. So updating meant having binders of FAQs, or tatty bits of paper, etc. And it meant you had to keep checking for updates - worse, you had to make sure you never lost that copy of the WD with the rules, or buy (or ensure you saw) every one of them. Which was of course useless to new players, and was a barrier to entry.

The rules dont have to be free to be online. They can be digital only rules, like we have now, with regular updates. Its also where GW is likely heading - the overheads of keeping them in stock in GW stores is surprisingly high compared to the rate of sale.

If GW had designed and playtested the rules better before release, there would have been less requirement for "updating" them.

I don't know about 6th and 7th so much -- I think the Allies rules totally upset the concept of balance by codex. But in 4th and 5th edition there were plenty of obvious examples of units and weapons (abilities, rules) that were under-powered, or over-powered, or xxx-costed, that a fairly cursory review would have caught before release.

Obviously the game is complex because there are so many different units and rules, but it didn't take "the Internet" more than a few days to spot the problems. Considering it used to take GW six months to put out a codex, they clearly did not spend much time on trying to avoid balance problems.

All of this argument has been hashed around many times before, and it will be hashed around many times again, no doubt.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If GW had designed and playtested the rules better before release, there would have been less requirement for "updating" them.

I don't know about 6th and 7th so much -- I think the Allies rules totally upset the concept of balance by codex. But in 4th and 5th edition there were plenty of obvious examples of units and weapons (abilities, rules) that were under-powered, or over-powered, or xxx-costed, that a fairly cursory review would have caught before release.

Obviously the game is complex because there are so many different units and rules, but it didn't take "the Internet" more than a few days to spot the problems. Considering it used to take GW six months to put out a codex, they clearly did not spend much time on trying to avoid balance problems.

All of this argument has been hashed around many times before, and it will be hashed around many times again, no doubt.

1. Not true, SC2 was more playtested and better designed than any other rule system, with little room for abuse, and there have been quite a lot of balance updates, all of which were required. A ruleset lives and needs to be updated as people react to it.
2. That whole "Allied FoC" thing is indeed broken, I wish they had never invented that.
3. GW cannot beat "the Internet", noone can, that's why you need reactive changes.

I guess it will - still, the only solution is living rules with balance updates, like SC2 albeit slower because the players (and not the computer) interprets the rules.

morgoth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If GW had designed and playtested the rules better before release, there would have been less requirement for "updating" them.

I don't know about 6th and 7th so much -- I think the Allies rules totally upset the concept of balance by codex. But in 4th and 5th edition there were plenty of obvious examples of units and weapons (abilities, rules) that were under-powered, or over-powered, or xxx-costed, that a fairly cursory review would have caught before release.

Obviously the game is complex because there are so many different units and rules, but it didn't take "the Internet" more than a few days to spot the problems. Considering it used to take GW six months to put out a codex, they clearly did not spend much time on trying to avoid balance problems.

All of this argument has been hashed around many times before, and it will be hashed around many times again, no doubt.

1. Not true, SC2 was more playtested and better designed than any other rule system, with little room for abuse, and there have been quite a lot of balance updates, all of which were required. A ruleset lives and needs to be updated as people react to it.
2. That whole "Allied FoC" thing is indeed broken, I wish they had never invented that.
3. GW cannot beat "the Internet", noone can, that's why you need reactive changes.

I guess it will - still, the only solution is living rules with balance updates, like SC2 albeit slower because the players (and not the computer) interprets the rules.

SC balance updates are generally tiny changes that fix minor imbalances- if 40K was at that level of balance no one but the most hardcore of number crunchers would so much as notice them...

 Galorian wrote:

SC balance updates are generally tiny changes that fix minor imbalances- if 40K was at that level of balance no one but the most hardcore of number crunchers would so much as notice them...

Not really That's how it ends but the first ones, especially during open beta, weren't "small" changes, and there was heavy playtesting even before the closed beta.

Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

What's SC2?

jamesk1973 wrote:
Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

Your definition of WAAC will change once someone accuses you of it only because you beat them. I played in a local RT (W-1 L-2) and my last game was a hideous curb stomping of my opponent. It was over on turn two. Never once had my dice and army worked so well together, nor have they since. It was the only time I have ever played this guy, so he doesn't know me. All he knew was it was the worst game of his life. So it is not surprising there is a Warseer thread calling me all manner of vile things. The only time in my life I've been called a WAAC player.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's SC2?

Starcraft 2 I believe.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.

It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.

Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testing

Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.