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.

 vipoid wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

Fantasy example but:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/Ogre-Kingdoms.pdf

Yeah... Jervis note pretty much validates your entire post.

Why?

It demonstrates perfectly what he was saying.

We'll leave you the "freedom" to do this, but you're a bad person if you do.

So, what's the point? Either have the guts to undo your mistake, or else leave it alone. Don't just dump the problem on the players.

I think you need to check what validate means.

Sorry, misread your post. I managed to read it as invalidates.

Davor wrote:
That is just a person who have to win with plastic toy soldiers. Why bother playing him. I would have looked at him, stared at him, say "Seriously?" Then when he gives a look I would say "Do you really need to win with plastic toy soldiers that badly?" then wait for his answer. If I don't find the answer satisfactory, I would say "You win, I won't bother playing since you really need to win so badly you will not be a fun person to play with, so take your victory and have a good day.".

So anyone with a list that you consider over-powered, who hasn't bothered to write a novel to 'justify' the existence of said list, you're just going to brand as WAAC?

Here's the thing: There is no list that you can possibly write using the current rules that can't be made to fit within the fluff. The 40K universe is a big, crazy place of shifting alliance, hazy goals, cut-throat tactics and whimsical gods. Anything goes in that setting.

Again, this isn't actually an issue of fluff. It's an issue of GW trying to shift the blame for their inability to write balanced rules onto the players.

 insaniak wrote:

Here's the thing: There is no list that you can possibly write using the current rules that can't be made to fit within the fluff. The 40K universe is a big, crazy place of shifting alliance, hazy goals, cut-throat tactics and whimsical gods. Anything goes in that setting.

Again, this isn't actually an issue of fluff. It's an issue of GW trying to shift the blame for their inability to write balanced rules onto the players.

No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win. If the people you play with enjoy plying varied, interesting armies and scenarios, out of cool models they collect 40k will be great for you. On the other hand, something else is better if you mostly want to play games with a few pieces that don't take long to get game ready, where playing and winning are your priority.

Talys wrote:
No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win.

But that's the point: It doesn't have to be one or the other.

An 'interesting unit' doesn't have to have sub-par rules in order to be usable.


And, again, it ignores cases like Wave Serpent spam, where including multiples of them is perfectly in keeping with the army. A player shouldn't be ostracised for fielding an army that is totally in keeping with the army's fluff and the way the army is supposed to work on the table.

Serpent spam isn't fluff-breaking. It's just horrible because GW gave them stupid rules.

Talys wrote:


No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win.

Define interesting. I find wave serpents and riptides interesting.

Talys wrote:
No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win.

What about those of us who would like to play interesting units *and* win?

You can use fluff to justify anything. I played Mech Guard (before it was cool) back in 3rd Ed. I had a whole back story for my army - the Cadian 444th Mechanised - but for a while I wanted to play all-infantry guard, so I simply wrote in the fluff that the unit was under "Inquisitorial review", and had their transports confiscated by a crazy Ordo Hereticus Inquisitrix.

Why are the 'interesting' and 'fun' models always the underpowered ones? As someone who likes mecha i see the riptides and wraithknights as interesting (not that i've got any). Who exactly gets to decide what is fun, and why must that be at odds with the (expensive) game rules that say: you can field this, this and this?

insaniak wrote:And, again, it ignores cases like Wave Serpent spam, where including multiples of them is perfectly in keeping with the army. A player shouldn't be ostracised for fielding an army that is totally in keeping with the army's fluff and the way the army is supposed to work on the table.

Serpent spam isn't fluff-breaking. It's just horrible because GW gave them stupid rules.

Blacksails wrote:
No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win.

Define interesting. I find wave serpents and riptides interesting.

Thing is, this is a fine and noble ideal until it comes into contact with humans.

Personally, I agree with essentially everything quoted in the OP, I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.

To me, I'd much rather figure out how to win on the table with a varied smorgasbord of units than simply, mindlessly, pick all the optimal units from the optimal codex and not have to think about how I play the game.

But, you have players like one guy at my club who has been heard to say "I want to win, I don't care if the other player has fun, if they don't bring a hardcore list, that means it's just easier" and, directly to me, on discussing how to encourage some of the, shall we say, "less good" players (mostly noobs and youngsters) responded with "No mercy, if they're s**t, that's not my problem."

As mentioned, some people attach waay too much importance to winning toy soldiers, usually, IME, to try and compensate for something they're not happy about in other parts of their life, and these people should be able to pour their heart and soul into making the best list possible, and refining every little detail to the nth degree.

It is the designers responsibility to ensure that people like me can still enjoy a game against people like that without either of us needing to compromise our personal philosophy about how the game should be played.

Talys wrote:
I find it 'interesting' that everyone ALWAYS says Riptides and Wave Serpents (and, not mentioned here, but Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, and Dreadknights) as the offending units. So I mean, if GW nerfed these units, would you be happy?

Or, in other words, if GW put more effort into crafting balanced codexes, would the people complaining about the codexes being imbalanced be happy?


I think the answer to that question should be fairly obvious, frankly.

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because most of the people who dislike the possibility of the imbalanced armies that much also dislike GW for many other (legitimate) reasons.

Fixing one of the problems with their game wouldn't automatically make everyone forget all of the other problems... but it would be a good start.

There is nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned units (sure, they could use a slight nerf), but the real issue is that they become horribly unbalanced and boring to play against if they constitute pretty much an entire army.

Do you not see how that's a problem in a game system that allows you to take that army?


If taking those units as your 'entire army' results in something that is bad for the game, then surely the answer is to either (A)Not allow those units to be taken as your entire army, or (B)Change those units so that they are not so abusive when taken that way.

Instead, GW go for (C)Blame the players for the studio not doing their job.

I mean, 40k does not work well when your army consists of 6 riptides, or 6 wave serpents and a bunch of fire dragons.

So don't make that an option.

Should GW make a rule making cheese armies impossible?

YES.

But seriously, how many people actually own a half dozen Riptides,

Quite a few, I would imagine.

... and how often do you go to an FLGS or a tournament (where it's almost never legal anyhow), where you see a totally cheesy army?

Pretty much every time...?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, this is a fine and noble ideal until it comes into contact with humans.

Personally, I agree with essentially everything quoted in the OP, I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.

A well built rules system would not make spamming the best unit in your codex the best way to win games. Just saying.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.

I don't see why "varied" and "fluffy" are so frequently assumed to be the same thing. A spam list can be very fluffy, and might even be less fluffy if the spam was replaced by a random collection of units. For example, I play IG and I want to have an all-tank army (a fluffy armored company) with multiple copies of each tank. Adding more variation would IMO ruin the nice fluff and symmetry of the list. And it's also no coincidence that complaints about "spam" involve lists that spam powerful units, while an army that spams lots of copies of a weak unit often gets praise for how "fluffy" it is. This even changes from edition to edition, depending on what is powerful at the moment. The fluffy mech Eldar list from the old codex is now the WAAC serpent spam list from the new codex, even if the player didn't change a single model.

LordBlades wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, this is a fine and noble ideal until it comes into contact with humans.

Personally, I agree with essentially everything quoted in the OP, I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.

A well built rules system would not make spamming the best unit in your codex the best way to win games. Just saying.

The very idea of a "best" unit is a product of an unbalanced rules system.

But you appear to disagreeing with me by agreeing with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.

I don't see why "varied" and "fluffy" are so frequently assumed to be the same thing. A spam list can be very fluffy, and might even be less fluffy if the spam was replaced by a random collection of units. For example, I play IG and I want to have an all-tank army (a fluffy armored company) with multiple copies of each tank. Adding more variation would IMO ruin the nice fluff and symmetry of the list. And it's also no coincidence that complaints about "spam" involve lists that spam powerful units, while an army that spams lots of copies of a weak unit often gets praise for how "fluffy" it is. This even changes from edition to edition, depending on what is powerful at the moment. The fluffy mech Eldar list from the old codex is now the WAAC serpent spam list from the new codex, even if the player didn't change a single model.

Ok, substitute "and" for "or" in that context, makes no odds to me, it's just picking on the specific and disregarding the general.

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
That is just a person who have to win with plastic toy soldiers. Why bother playing him. I would have looked at him, stared at him, say "Seriously?" Then when he gives a look I would say "Do you really need to win with plastic toy soldiers that badly?" then wait for his answer. If I don't find the answer satisfactory, I would say "You win, I won't bother playing since you really need to win so badly you will not be a fun person to play with, so take your victory and have a good day.".

So anyone with a list that you consider over-powered, who hasn't bothered to write a novel to 'justify' the existence of said list, you're just going to brand as WAAC?

Here's the thing: There is no list that you can possibly write using the current rules that can't be made to fit within the fluff. The 40K universe is a big, crazy place of shifting alliance, hazy goals, cut-throat tactics and whimsical gods. Anything goes in that setting.

Again, this isn't actually an issue of fluff. It's an issue of GW trying to shift the blame for their inability to write balanced rules onto the players.

I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.

Davor wrote:
I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.

I see, so bringing a strong list automatically sets a default that you're a WAAC player until you meet Davor's burden of proof for demonstrating otherwise?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, substitute "and" for "or" in that context, makes no odds to me, it's just picking on the specific and disregarding the general.

The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.

Saim-hann Jetbikes and World Eaters Berzerkers both make for very distinct and fluffy army themes but the power disparity is... noticeable.

Davor wrote:
I would say Yes.

So what benchmark are you using to determine which lists are overpowered?

And how do you ensure that your opponents are aware of this benchmark when they write their lists?

Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard.

It is when you're deciding that the other guy is playing 'just to win' based on an arbitrary benchmark that you have created out of whole cloth.

Just because you think a given list is overpowered, that doesn't mean your opponent will agree.

I remember reading that article back then. But as someone said a page or two back, it doesn't apply any more, at least to 40k.

The game today is nothing like the game back then. Back then was when I started, and the game was far more restrictive than it is now. Does anyone remember needing your opponents permission to use a special characters?

I'm going to say before anything else, I love 40k. I love the aesthetics, building the models, painting and playing the game but...

The truth of the matter is, that 40k is a decades old, rehashed game system, with changes made just for the sake of change. Throw in a good measure of 'new' rules welded on (Flyer's, Super Heavies etc...) and you get to what it is now. It's a game system that now sprawls across several books and editions. As a company, Games Workshop have no interest in 'Finishing' the game. Which you think might be possible with the amount of time they have had.

For a company that claims to be a model company first, they have a real knack for making truck loads of money off books and rules. Here's a good example.

A more recent example of 'new rules' is the formations. So far everyone I know thinks they are pretty cool, I agree for the most part. However, I haven't seen any wide spread commentary about how this 'new rule' can be directly linked to selling specific models, and usually in large numbers. Take the Hellbrute formations, no one would normally have that many Hellbrutes. I am sure you can find other examples yourselves. The prior incarnation of Rules to sell models were Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, Online Data Slates etc... They just innovated that concept when they came up with Formations. Pretty clever actually.

The point I am making is that Games Workshop doesn't care any more. They don't care about competitive play, or balancing one codex internally or externally, or even Forging the Narrative. They care about selling models and books. They are a business, they have shareholder's, and they have a bottom line. Maybe when back in 1998 they cared enough to talk openly about 'their vision' of how the game should be played, but no longer.

And this doesn't bother me at all, because I just like 40k. I recognize 40k for what it is, and accept that.

In the end 'The Spirit of the Game' to me is simple, enjoy it, have fun. However you get there is really just up to you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, substitute "and" for "or" in that context, makes no odds to me, it's just picking on the specific and disregarding the general.

The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.

Ok, try this: I stated a preference.

SpookyRuben wrote:
I remember reading that article back then. But as someone said a page or two back, it doesn't apply any more, at least to 40k.

The game today is nothing like the game back then. Back then was when I started, and the game was far more restrictive than it is now. Does anyone remember needing your opponents permission to use a special characters?

Yes, and it was a good thing to prevent abuses or stupid nonsense like Marneus Calgar showing up in every battle, or mixing and matching characters to create some uber-combo. The game was better when SCs were permission only and they remained where they belonged - for use in scenarios or themed armies, not all over the place for the benefits they bring to the table.

I'm going to say before anything else, I love 40k. I love the aesthetics, building the models, painting and playing the game but...

The truth of the matter is, that 40k is a decades old, rehashed game system, with changes made just for the sake of change. Throw in a good measure of 'new' rules welded on (Flyer's, Super Heavies etc...) and you get to what it is now. It's a game system that now sprawls across several books and editions. As a company, Games Workshop have no interest in 'Finishing' the game. Which you think might be possible with the amount of time they have had.

And that's a problem, the rules should have been perfected over 20+ years, not redone and half-assed every single edition since 3rd changed the core rules. Because ultimately the core rules are the same as it was when 3rd edition came out, which I remember because I still played then.

For a company that claims to be a model company first, they have a real knack for making truck loads of money off books and rules. Here's a good example.

A more recent example of 'new rules' is the formations. So far everyone I know thinks they are pretty cool, I agree for the most part. However, I haven't seen any wide spread commentary about how this 'new rule' can be directly linked to selling specific models, and usually in large numbers. Take the Hellbrute formations, no one would normally have that many Hellbrutes. I am sure you can find other examples yourselves. The prior incarnation of Rules to sell models were Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, Online Data Slates etc... They just innovated that concept when they came up with Formations. Pretty clever actually.

The point I am making is that Games Workshop doesn't care any more. They don't care about competitive play, or balancing one codex internally or externally, or even Forging the Narrative. They care about selling models and books. They are a business, they have shareholder's, and they have a bottom line. Maybe when back in 1998 they cared enough to talk openly about 'their vision' of how the game should be played, but no longer.

And this doesn't bother me at all, because I just like 40k. I recognize 40k for what it is, and accept that.

In the end 'The Spirit of the Game' to me is simple, enjoy it, have fun. However you get there is really just up to you.

But the issue here is that they use Spirit of the Game (and "forge the narrative") to excuse themselves from doing their job as games designers. It's not on the player to say "Well, I really like Riptides but more than one is going to be too unfair for my opponent" it's on the game designer to look at the Riptide and say that it's too powerful and should be toned down in some regard, or cost more points so you can't reasonably field more than one or two except in large scale games, or limit them entirely to prevent abuse. It is absolutely on the designer to put restrictions in place if necessary because it's not the players fault if they do what they are allowed to do, and it is absolute bullgak to suggest that it somehow is.

The issue here is that sales of models drives everything with GW (didn't one of the founders warn against this very thing? Someone has a quote about it somewhere), so there are no restrictions because that would impede selling multiples of the big models to people. It's absolutely the wrong direction to go, and rather than realize it they've just kept putting up the idea that they really don't make rules they make models, and just happen to have something resembling rules so you can bring the pretty figures out of the cabinet from time to time and aren't these books great with hardcover and glossy pages which is why they're so expensive, but they really aren't a game and you should come up with your own things and police yourselves because a game isn't really what we're selling it's these pretty jewel-like miniatures of wonder so why don't you buy all of it right now?

Feth that. They can repeat the lie as often as they want, it won't make it true. It's just sad that I finally realize they've spouted this line of gak for 20 years, when I thought that it was a recent thing. The "spirit of the game" was gak then and it's gak now, just an excuse to write crap and then put any and all blame on the player. Oh it's not our fault that you can field six Riptides, even though we don't restrict it and actually changed the rules to allow as many as you want, it's that nasty beardy git that you play against's fault for taking six Riptides when that's not a fluffy Tau army at all, it should have one at max because they are experimental, but we can't actually restrict it because then he might only buy one instead of three, so we'll just allow as many as you want and it's now your problem, not ours.

Again, feth that.

 Azreal13 wrote:


It is the designers responsibility to ensure that people like me can still enjoy a game against people like that without either of us needing to compromise our personal philosophy about how the game should be played.

-The above quote is referencing a WAAC player at his local club.

I understand your desire, but I would disagree. Regarding Games Workshop Designer's. It's not one of their objectives; because of that there will always be this friction among the player base. So that leaves us individuals to sort it out.

Personally from what you describe. I would just not play against him, and let him know why.

Except no other popular game has this division in the player base!

That's because no other game has the same disparity in unit power - there's some more efficient options than others, sure, but nothing like that which exists in 40K.

I've even seen quotes attributed to GW designers stating that they know they screwed up with Tau and Eldar, but have no intention of fixing it. Contrast that with the makers of other popular games that regularly and actively engage in trying to maintain the best level of balance they can.

As for the WAAC guy at my club? I avoid him when possible, but we're a small group and if we have a league or campaign running, sometimes it's unavoidable.

SpookyRuben wrote:
I remember reading that article back then. But as someone said a page or two back, it doesn't apply any more, at least to 40k.

The game today is nothing like the game back then. Back then was when I started, and the game was far more restrictive than it is now. Does anyone remember needing your opponents permission to use a special characters?

I'm going to say before anything else, I love 40k. I love the aesthetics, building the models, painting and playing the game but...

The truth of the matter is, that 40k is a decades old, rehashed game system, with changes made just for the sake of change. Throw in a good measure of 'new' rules welded on (Flyer's, Super Heavies etc...) and you get to what it is now. It's a game system that now sprawls across several books and editions. As a company, Games Workshop have no interest in 'Finishing' the game. Which you think might be possible with the amount of time they have had.

For a company that claims to be a model company first, they have a real knack for making truck loads of money off books and rules. Here's a good example.

A more recent example of 'new rules' is the formations. So far everyone I know thinks they are pretty cool, I agree for the most part. However, I haven't seen any wide spread commentary about how this 'new rule' can be directly linked to selling specific models, and usually in large numbers. Take the Hellbrute formations, no one would normally have that many Hellbrutes. I am sure you can find other examples yourselves. The prior incarnation of Rules to sell models were Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, Online Data Slates etc... They just innovated that concept when they came up with Formations. Pretty clever actually.

The point I am making is that Games Workshop doesn't care any more. They don't care about competitive play, or balancing one codex internally or externally, or even Forging the Narrative. They care about selling models and books. They are a business, they have shareholder's, and they have a bottom line. Maybe when back in 1998 they cared enough to talk openly about 'their vision' of how the game should be played, but no longer.

And this doesn't bother me at all, because I just like 40k. I recognize 40k for what it is, and accept that.

In the end 'The Spirit of the Game' to me is simple, enjoy it, have fun. However you get there is really just up to you.

I think their vision now is to maximize shareholder dividends. In fact, I can accept that as fact, since the CEO said so, in nearly those words, in the most recent financial statements. A lot of people seem to think this is horrible, but frankly, as long as they produce products that I want (like Apple or Microsoft or Electronic Arts), I am happy that maximizing profitability is important to them. If they cease to produce products that I want to buy, price them beyond my means, or if competitors produce products I prefer, they'll lose my business.

And/but: I haven't found a large model count IGYG scifi game to play, and this is the type of game I like. I simply can't get into a game with 20 models on each side, unless it's a boardgame (like bloodbowl). Since I've played almost everything at least a little, I'm sure sooner or later something else will grab my interest


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except no other popular game has this division in the player base!

That's because no other game has the same disparity in unit power - there's some more efficient options than others, sure, but nothing like that which exists in 40K.

I've even seen quotes attributed to GW designers stating that they know they screwed up with Tau and Eldar, but have no intention of fixing it. Contrast that with the makers of other popular games that regularly and actively engage in trying to maintain the best level of balance they can.

As for the WAAC guy at my club? I avoid him when possible, but we're a small group and if we have a league or campaign running, sometimes it's unavoidable.

Not quite the same genre, but sharing a common playerbase and FLGS, MtG very much has this issue (as well as many other TCGs), yet MtG is massively popular, despite being orders of magnitude more expensive to be and remain competitive.

Peregrine wrote:

Davor wrote:
I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.

I see, so bringing a strong list automatically sets a default that you're a WAAC player until you meet Davor's burden of proof for demonstrating otherwise?

No the list doesn't default you to the WAAC player, but the person's attitude does.

insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
I would say Yes.

So what benchmark are you using to determine which lists are overpowered?

And how do you ensure that your opponents are aware of this benchmark when they write their lists?

It all comes to attitude. I find some people who think they are "jocks" when they play 40K and are better than others. This is what for me makes them WAAC players. Their attitude.

I have to agree with this.

It doesn't seem like GW's usual can't be bothered but instead Priestly is genuinely saddened by the fact that a world he put so much effort and time into creating is being pushed aside for the sake of winning.

I don't play this hobby to win, I play it because I like the world of it.

A lot of people I meet who are "WAAC" seem to have this almost bloodlust like obsession with winning, where nothing else matters except for that.

This game is for having fun, not satiating your cravings for domination.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be fair someone with only a powerful list isn't WAAC to me.

WAAC is when your are driven by a craving for victory, where you are more than willing to betray every shred of human decency to gain the upper edge at toy soldiers.

Most of the fun games I've played ended with half my army getting slaughtered but it was fun because my opponent acted like a human being.

On the flip side, no one should be made the villain for wanting to win, within reason.

Having fun and winning or losing are not mutually exclusive affairs.

I do agree GW does suck at rule writing

LAST TIME ON 6TH EDITION Z!

GW: 3 heldrakes, no problem there. 2 units of 'Ard Boyz! Slow down there partner you might just break the game!

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
It doesn't seem like GW's usual can't be bothered but instead Priestly is genuinely saddened by the fact that a world he put so much effort and time into creating is being pushed aside for the sake of winning.

Yeah, it's shocking that people would play a wargame that pits two armies against each other for the sole purpose of having one of those armies emerge victorious... and actually want to win that game...


Priestly's world isn't being pushed aside. Again, any army that you care to build can be given a fluffy basis for existing with very little effort. The problem is nothing to do with fluff, and everything to do with a lack of time and effort put into creating the part of the game that actually matters for playing the game: The rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
No the list doesn't default you to the WAAC player, but the person's attitude does.

Really?

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So anyone with a list that you consider over-powered, who hasn't bothered to write a novel to 'justify' the existence of said list, you're just going to brand as WAAC?...

I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.

So which is it?