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.

I was reading an old issue of White Dwarf (221, June 1998) and they had an article about the "Spirit of the Game" and is IIRC the first official mention of the term "beardy" (which later gave birth to the term "cheesy"). This article was written for Fantasy, but a lot of it I think applies in general. The article was written by the 1995 Warhammer Grand Champion, Dave Cain.

This was the definition of the term:

Someone who pushes the rules to th e limit or does not adhere to the background image of their army.

or, in the words of Rick Priestly himself:

Someone who is more interested in playing the rules than playing the game.

In 1998 this was GW's viewpoint on army selection:

What constitutes a "beardy" army is highly subjective. howerver there are a number of guidelines I think you should follow.

The Warhammer Armies books are written to allow players as wide a choice as possible in selecting forces. This was done to free up players and allow for the construction of themed armies, for use in scenarios and the like. However this does allow certain individuals to produce armies that are created simply to win games, with no credence towards the character of the race it is supposed to represent.

Wood Elf forces are renowned for their archery and so fielding an army with no archers just does not sit right with the background to this race. The potent imagery of the Undead features shambling hordes of Skeletons and Zombies slowly but inexorably crossing the battlefield. So using nothing but mounted Skeleton horsemen and chariots again undermines the rich heritage of the Warhammer world. Skaven armies with no Clanrats, Empire armies with no Halberdiers - the list goes on.

It then goes on to say, however, that in the right circumstances you can do a themed army for scenario games, but you should let your opponent know that you are using a themed force.

Some other quotes:

By working the army lists to produce an outlandish army that is chosen simply to maximise the chances of victory, you are depriving yourself of [being the better general]. You are not showing yourself to be the best general, only sneaky at selecting armies.

The most frequently encountered method of "working" army lists is to include large numbers of elite regiments, or exclude regiments that may not be useful against certain opponents. Although in small measures this is acceptable, but when taken to extremes the resultant game suffers.

Thus are born Dwarf armies featuring predominantly the elite Iron Breakers, Long Bears and Hammerers, or Empire forces composed of mainly Knights and supporting cavalry.

Armies including large proportions of war machines or monsters should also be restricted to scenarios and the like. Speaking from experience, lining up against six Repeater Bolt Throwers or three Griffons does not make for a fun game!

I found their approach back then, even if it was in the context of Fantasy, to be quite interesting compared to what they seem to think now, and perhaps they still do think that but don't know/care that the gaps in the rules allow for the very things that they speak out against.

Translation: "we suck at game design, and you're a if you don't have fun the way we like to have fun".

WayneTheGame wrote:
I was reading an old issue of White Dwarf (221, June 1998) and they had an article about the "Spirit of the Game" and is IIRC the first official mention of the term "beardy" (which later gave birth to the term "cheesy"). This article was written for Fantasy, but a lot of it I think applies in general. The article was written by the 1995 Warhammer Grand Champion, Dave Cain.

This was the definition of the term:

Someone who pushes the rules to th e limit or does not adhere to the background image of their army.

or, in the words of Rick Priestly himself:

Someone who is more interested in playing the rules than playing the game.

In 1998 this was GW's viewpoint on army selection:

What constitutes a "beardy" army is highly subjective. howerver there are a number of guidelines I think you should follow.

The Warhammer Armies books are written to allow players as wide a choice as possible in selecting forces. This was done to free up players and allow for the construction of themed armies, for use in scenarios and the like. However this does allow certain individuals to produce armies that are created simply to win games, with no credence towards the character of the race it is supposed to represent.

Wood Elf forces are renowned for their archery and so fielding an army with no archers just does not sit right with the background to this race. The potent imagery of the Undead features shambling hordes of Skeletons and Zombies slowly but inexorably crossing the battlefield. So using nothing but mounted Skeleton horsemen and chariots again undermines the rich heritage of the Warhammer world. Skaven armies with no Clanrats, Empire armies with no Halberdiers - the list goes on.

It then goes on to say, however, that in the right circumstances you can do a themed army for scenario games, but you should let your opponent know that you are using a themed force.

Some other quotes:

By working the army lists to produce an outlandish army that is chosen simply to maximise the chances of victory, you are depriving yourself of [being the better general]. You are not showing yourself to be the best general, only sneaky at selecting armies.

The most frequently encountered method of "working" army lists is to include large numbers of elite regiments, or exclude regiments that may not be useful against certain opponents. Although in small measures this is acceptable, but when taken to extremes the resultant game suffers.

Thus are born Dwarf armies featuring predominantly the elite Iron Breakers, Long Bears and Hammerers, or Empire forces composed of mainly Knights and supporting cavalry.

Armies including large proportions of war machines or monsters should also be restricted to scenarios and the like. Speaking from experience, lining up against six Repeater Bolt Throwers or three Griffons does not make for a fun game!

I found their approach back then, even if it was in the context of Fantasy, to be quite interesting compared to what they seem to think now, and perhaps they still do think that but don't know/care that the gaps in the rules allow for the very things that they speak out against.

Really need the quote of Jervis Johnson talking about the game basically being Rock Paper Scissors right about now to drive the point in.

Or maybe we're too harsh on their game design. Maybe they're intensely aware that not everyone has fun like they do- perhaps any resemblance of balancing restraints is a deliberate consideration for the Beardies!

 God In Action wrote:
Or maybe we're too harsh on their game design.

Nah, most people aren't harsh enough.

Maybe they're intensely aware that not everyone has fun like they do- perhaps any resemblance of balancing restraints is a deliberate consideration for the Beardies!

I'm sure that's some of it, and it's part of why GW's rule authors are incompetent morons. If your job is to make a profitable game you're an idiot if you publish bad rules just to annoy a type of player that you don't like. A competent professional game designer would understand that balance is good for casual/narrative play, and those people you hate are still potential sales.

 Peregrine wrote:

 God In Action wrote:
Or maybe we're too harsh on their game design.

Nah, most people aren't harsh enough.

Maybe they're intensely aware that not everyone has fun like they do- perhaps any resemblance of balancing restraints is a deliberate consideration for the Beardies!

I'm sure that's some of it, and it's part of why GW's rule authors are incompetent morons. If your job is to make a profitable game you're an idiot if you publish bad rules just to annoy a type of player that you don't like. A competent professional game designer would understand that balance is good for casual/narrative play, and those people you hate are still potential sales.

But their job isn't to make a profitable game, it's to have something resembling rules so you can use all those pretty jewel-like objects of wonder that you are expected to buy.

Sorry, I mistyped. I should have said 'perhaps the lack of any resemblance'.

I meant to imply that they don't balance the game so that Beardies can have their fun!

If this is the same article I remember they had a blue box titled "beards anonymous" which acknowledged that like minded players choosing competitive and "beardy" armies could be an environment for good fun too.

Although I don't agree with some of the statements you quoted, in general I do agree with their point that the best way to play any Games Workshop game is to approach it from the angle of both players having fun trumping making an uber competitive list.

Interesting read, on the one hand I see their point and agree with the general idea of fair play and how fluffy lists are more satisfying to collect, but it also reads to me like they're saying there's a "right" and "wrong" way to play. I've always maintained that your attitude is more conducive to a good game than list selection and one attitude I don't like is this right vs wrong mentality.

If they thought there were certain units that were "essential" to an army's character then they should have made them mandatory. Also, if it was possible to use nothing but elite or otherwise strong units and they thought that was wrong, they should've put harder limits on them. Players are only using legal options in the books that GW has written, so it seems pointless to offer these options then complain when people pick them.

I prefer characterful lists. For example, in Bolt Action I've sometimes taken the "worse" choice for the sake of historical accuracy, because I find it more satisfying to build that kind of army. But if someone uses a "beardy" list, there's nothing I can do, so might as well do my best to enjoy the game.

Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.

The reason they have moved away from restrictions more is clearly that they want to make the kinds of fluffy, themed lists mentioned in article always possibly. They want to make it so that if you want to play an all-Veteran First Company list or a HS/FA IG armoured column you can, and it leaves the for much more open than any kind of Slot-shifting or the like. Saying anything goes gives players that absoloute power of freedom.

But with great power, there does come a responsibility. They are trusting you, within these slight restrictions, to use them to make fun lists, to theme your army, and also to take your opponent's experience into account. Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list. So the article, and GW, ask that you respect that. Like any kind of game in a non-competitive environment (in other words, where wins and losses are the result, but not the point or focus), 40k is a social event, and as far as I'm concerned, in any situation like that, your primary concern should be on ensuring the people you are playing with are enjoying themselves.

Now, I would never presume to tell anyone how, why or for what reason to play a game of 40k, but I think it's quite clear how GW mean the game to be played, and what they work towards in writing it.

GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game. Unless everyone uses un-optimized armies, there will be gross imbalance, but then some people find handicapping yourself to be un-fun.
A better solution would be to either make all units viable and/or give bonuses to themed lists.

 Bottle wrote:
If this is the same article I remember they had a blue box titled "beards anonymous" which acknowledged that like minded players choosing competitive and "beardy" armies could be an environment for good fun too.

Although I don't agree with some of the statements you quoted, in general I do agree with their point that the best way to play any Games Workshop game is to approach it from the angle of both players having fun trumping making an uber competitive list.

Yep. I think it's that one

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.

I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.

.
A better solution would be to either make all units viable and/or give bonuses to themed lists.

All units are viable, like I say, in a non-optimised list, no one option is going to win or lose you a game unless you run up against a hard counter. And bonuses to themed lists are exactly what they are giving in droves with Formations, new Detachments and the like. A themed GK list will be elite heavy, and you guessed it, the GK detachment has more Elite slots and gives a bonus to that army!

All units are not viable and those themed lists are often about spamming certain units.

 Paradigm wrote:
Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.

The reason they have moved away from restrictions more is clearly that they want to make the kinds of fluffy, themed lists mentioned in article always possibly. They want to make it so that if you want to play an all-Veteran First Company list or a HS/FA IG armoured column you can, and it leaves the for much more open than any kind of Slot-shifting or the like. Saying anything goes gives players that absoloute power of freedom.

But with great power, there does come a responsibility. They are trusting you, within these slight restrictions, to use them to make fun lists, to theme your army, and also to take your opponent's experience into account. Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list. So the article, and GW, ask that you respect that. Like any kind of game in a non-competitive environment (in other words, where wins and losses are the result, but not the point or focus), 40k is a social event, and as far as I'm concerned, in any situation like that, your primary concern should be on ensuring the people you are playing with are enjoying themselves.

Now, I would never presume to tell anyone how, why or for what reason to play a game of 40k, but I think it's quite clear how GW mean the game to be played, and what they work towards in writing it.

^This. 100% This.

Well said Paradigm I couldn't agree with you more.

 MWHistorian wrote:
All units are not viable.

Can I have an example? Can you list a unit that will not, under any circumstances, ever provide anything of value to army? In other words, a unit you'd prefer to play a game X points down then spend X points on it. I honestly can't think of one.

As far as I can remember not many armies doing fluffy, themed units are handicapped, from when I played at my flgs. Sure some people did abuse some units, such as heldrakes, but most people did their best to keep a theme, and not just focus on winning.

Competitive can be fluffy

If you think you need to rely on cheese whizzing it, then dont expect people to play against you. Thats my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I once played a necron player who used flayed ones as ark guards

Why only pick the people that worked for GW how had crazy ideas about how the game is suppose to be played like. How about show actual armies and how they were build by those designers that actualy played the game and not taking part in a "hobby".


And hadicaped fluff armies, how are eldar , necron or GK weak ? The problem is not that fluff armies are weaker, but that GW makes GK and DA in the same edition and those books are technicly made to be played with the same rules system.

Makumba wrote:
Why only pick the people that worked for GW how had crazy ideas about how the game is suppose to be played like.

So, to clarify, you're saying that the people who wrote the actual game all those years ago, and therefore the people who know exactly how they intend the game to work, don't know how the game 'should' work?

Well, thing is, I don't really expect a tabletop game between two friends to be comparable to a videogame between two strangers.

In the latter, my expectation for game balance and for a skill-based competition is much greater.

In a tabletop warfare game where there are many units, I think the balance is between having open options which lead to the possibility of imbalance, and restricted options, which lead to fewer legal lists.

I would rather have a dual-mode game, where "beardy" armies are supported (it might make sense, in some scenarios), but where there is a structure in place for a match between more balanced forces.

I'd love to see the game balanced such that balanced forces are highly rewarded or unbalanced forces are highly penalized in both cost and function. For example, non-compliant armies all scaling penalties that get worse the more they are non-compliant, topping out at something like AV-3 for heavy/superheavy, leadership - 2, and double point value; whereas narrowly aligned or themetic armies receive a 20% point discount (or perhaps 30% for single faction), and possibly leadership +1.

So sure, you can have all riptides, but you'll only get 4 instead of 6, and your enemy will be able to hurt them even if they don't have specialized troops; while the other side will be able to get a couple more heavier hitting squads based on what else they own.

Psssshh. I'm sure Flyrant spam, Annihilation Barge spam, Serpent Spam w/ Wraithknight, Jetseer Council, Pask's Perfectly Powerful Punisher of Pain, and Transcendent C'Tan in 2,000 points are perfectly fluffy.
And if they aren't... I enjoy defiling the fluff. Time to plan out a Tyranid Flyrant spam allied with ScreamerStar allied with Serpent Spam list!

What? Don't look at me! I'm forging the narrative! NOOOOOOOOOOO!

 Paradigm wrote:
Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.

The problem is the only article related to game balance I can think of lately is the one I mentioned earlier where Jervis basically said "Poor balance is fine because another army can beat that one".

 Paradigm wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
All units are not viable.

Can I have an example? Can you list a unit that will not, under any circumstances, ever provide anything of value to army? In other words, a unit you'd prefer to play a game X points down then spend X points on it. I honestly can't think of one.

I think we have different definitions of viable. I'm not dealing in absolutes.
My definition would be: Seldom earns its points back or brings anything positive to your game other than giving the enemy something else to shoot at. Sure, on occasion they might do something nifty, but that's a rare exception.
Mutilators, Penitent Engines, Warp Talons, Howling Banshees, Flayed Ones, etc.
I believe these and other units do not accomplish their purpose to any degree of regularity or efficiency. Basically, they cost far more than they're worth and you're actively hurting your army by taking them instead of something else and giving free points to the enemy.

 Paradigm wrote:


So, to clarify, you're saying that the people who wrote the actual game all those years ago, and therefore the people who know exactly how they intend the game to work, don't know how the game 'should' work?

You have read the rules? ;-)

Joking aside. The problem i have with the article is not its message but the game/rules that message is supposed to work with. A game being fun for both should be the goal but the rules are loose (in a multitude of ways) and that makes it harder to find that spot where both players have the same concept of the game in their head. It works better if you have a group of people to regularly play with but the more things get looser (stuff like unbound armies) the bigger the chance that a random game (against a random person) with be one where the two players have a different view on how it should work.

Better rules should cause less problems that need that kind of article.

Aren't there whole threads describing in detail all the useless units in 40K? If you deny the existence of useless units, you are blind.

 Paradigm wrote:
Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list.

I see, so in your world nobody buys lots of Riptides because they love giant anime robots and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model, or continues to play their 5th edition Wave Serpent army once GW makes it overpowered. Nor does anyone disagree with your opinion that such an army is "unfluffy". They're all just WAAC TFGs who love nothing more than crushing an opponent who has no real hope of winning or even challenging them.

Talys wrote:
Well, thing is, I don't really expect a tabletop game between two friends to be comparable to a videogame between two strangers.

You seem to be assuming that tabletop games are only played with friends.

I would rather have a dual-mode game, where "beardy" armies are supported (it might make sense, in some scenarios), but where there is a structure in place for a match between more balanced forces..

The thing is, if the intention is to only ever use 'beardy' armies for specific scenarios they don't need to be allowed by the rules. Because they're going to be allowed by the specific rules of the scenario anyway.

I'd love to see the game balanced such that balanced forces are highly rewarded or unbalanced forces are highly penalized in both cost and function. For example, non-compliant armies all scaling penalties that get worse the more they are non-compliant, topping out at something like AV-3 for heavy/superheavy, leadership - 2, and double point value; whereas narrowly aligned or themetic armies receive a 20% point discount (or perhaps 30% for single faction), and possibly leadership +1.

So sure, you can have all riptides, but you'll only get 4 instead of 6, and your enemy will be able to hurt them even if they don't have specialized troops; while the other side will be able to get a couple more heavier hitting squads based on what else they own.

Won't happen. Because GW don't actually understand which units are overpowered to begin with, because they don't play the same game as everyone else.

Case in point - The studio thought they needed to buff psykers in 7th edition, because they thought that Librarians were too weak because everyone in the studio used Captains and Chaplains instead. Everyone else on the planet already considered Librarians to almost always be the best HQ option in the codex.

So expecting them to be able to build the system you're talking about? Not likely.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list.

I see, so in your world nobody buys lots of Riptides because they love giant anime robots and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model, or continues to play their 5th edition Wave Serpent army once GW makes it overpowered. Nor does anyone disagree with your opinion that such an army is "unfluffy". They're all just WAAC TFGs who love nothing more than crushing an opponent who has no real hope of winning or even challenging them.

I think you are maybe missing the point or I may be interpreting it wrong but I think what he is trying to say is, if someone were to run one of these triptide or serpentspam lists or whatever else, it would be unexpected for the opponent outside of a tournament, I certainly wouldn't be expecting it. People may love anime robots or have remains of old Eldar lists, but that doesn't mean it isn't surprising when they play these kinds of lists in a casual game. If someone set a Triptide/Serpentspam list down to play against me in a casual game, I will admit the first thing I'd be thinking is they are a WAAC player, as in my opinion there would be a fairly low percentage in comparison who would be doing it for fluff/love/cost reasons etc. I'm not saying that it is right to think that way but its how I would think and how I know many others in the hobby would respond also.

If they are doing it for fluff/cost/love reasons or whatever else then all the power to them and I'll support them all the way in that endeavour, I don't care how anyone plays the game or builds their list (as long as they are happy.), it doesn't mean I can't think it's surprising or make such an initial 'bad' judgement based on what they pick.

Anyone I've ever met who has played one of these kinds of lists against me has been a WAAC player (and most are happy to admit they are.) and I've played a fair few of these types, so its my go to response when I see them, but I suppose that makes me wrong too.

I think a lot of us here are of the opinion that if the rules were well written then articles such as the one quoted in the OP wouldn't be necessary. If Codices were written in a way that made all unit types viable, rather than some being obvious and objectively better/worse than others, then such labels like "beardy", "WAAC", and so on wouldn't need to exist.

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Well, thing is, I don't really expect a tabletop game between two friends to be comparable to a videogame between two strangers.

You seem to be assuming that tabletop games are only played with friends.

Well, that's not really an assumption of mine, though I choose to play most of my games with friends. Let me rephrase: tabletop games are played between people physically in contact with each other, where decorum, sportsmanship and good manners matter; these people you encounter, you have a likelihood of meeting again, and they often run into the same people that you run into.

In contrast PvP video games are often played between strangers, and most often are played between people who are not in physical contact with each other. With someone whom you have never met, don't know, don't care to know, and may never speak to or play with again, the rules of decorum, sportsmanship, and good manners are at a minimum, different (if not altogether nonexistent in many cases).

I have different expectations of the two gaming environments -- that's all I'm saying. I enjoy both.