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.

 kodos wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
As I never attended a tournament I have no idea how points are counted and so on so this is a genuine question.

usually there are 20 total points and you get 11 to 20 tournament points for a victory based o the difference scored during the game (and 9 to 0 for losing)

With a 5 game event, winning 3 games 20:0 and losing 2 games 0:20 will place you higher than winning all 5 games 12:8 or lower

So lists are built to win 20:0 as much as possible even if this means losing 0:20 against certain other builds rather than trying to handle all common lists

Thanks for the explanation comrade! That's a lot clearer

Being bit of an anti talent as far as art stuff goes, which my LL army can attest to with it looks. I would be the last to judge some of the choices GW takes with their models. But looking bad definitly doesn't help. And it is easy to check.
9th ed BA, one of the few marine armies that had some success, run a lot of Sanguinary Guard. A Blood Angle models as they can be. Old DC was used too. Later on, as it is now with most marines. The way to play them is to take Oath and desolators. Take melee with marines, or worse, try to be a melee army. You will not be a happy person.

Now in both examples we have BAs being okeyish to good, or at least not bad. But I think most of us would agree that a big majority of BA players, were more happy having an army of model looking like BA, then looking like desolators too.

We can even bring 8th in to the argument too. BA were good . for some time, there too. The problem is that the BA part of the BA army consisted of 15 scouts and 2 characters, the rest was IG, a Ravellan etc And that army was more meta and BA are now. A lot of marines, not just BAs liked that. Same with DE players being told, that in order to start their army they should take a farseer, dire avangers and wave serpents.

The need to take 5 button pushers from outside your army, is not fun right now. But at least it is just 5, VERY hard to get models.

Over the 3 editions I have seen people play a ton of units that were old, bad looking (to me and in general world view sense of the models), the models that are good fly off the shelfs. Impossible to get them. Bad models on the other hand, may look great. And if someone cares a lot for outside of game aspects, it can help to deal with an army being bad. But I don't think the argument works on Timmy and his marines getting beaten by Jimmies custodes. He doesn't want to be told that in 10-15 years, when he grows up, has a home, is more mature and sofisticated, he will learn to not care and like to paint. Because for Timmy what matters is that he is not having fun now, and Jimmy is. And in 6 months Jimmy may no longer be playing and Timmy will be left with an investment that wasn't very fun.

 kodos wrote:
PS: add in that you don't need to win all your games to win an event but need to win most of them with a big difference

So playing an "anti list" that is easily stomped by 1 faction, but makes sure you win high against any other can be placed much higher than a balanced list that wins all games but does not wipe them off the table

And 40k is the only game I know were winning is not the most important metric to place 1st in a single event

What you say about scoring is true - but I think due to competition, its rare to see someone win an event if they haven't gone X-0/X-1.
We do occasionally see in say a 5 game tournament someone who's had 4 blowouts and a close loss beat someone who's had 5 narrower wins - but its not that common.

I think the issue is that 40k doesn't have strong rock/paper/scissors. Its rare I think that a list will be strong into a good list, but bad into a weak list. I think that's because this evolutionary process happens at pace. If a "meta list" has a significant weakness, its usually exploited early, and that list will stop being meta as a result. Lists end up being meta precisely because they have no explicit weaknesses.

So for example, I think Orks in late 8th edition represented a counter-meta pick - because the tools to chisel out 30-40 Intercessors (often IH) were different to those you'd take for efficiently killing 150-180 boyz. And they didn't want to take the second, because there were 5+ times as many Marine players as Ork players (probably rising as you went through the rounds). I argued the same with Harlequins at the outset of 9th - were your going to skew your whole list for that 1 Harlequin player?

I imagine there may be a bit of that at the moment. DG and LoV are bad generally - but a tailored list would look very different into Eldar, Knights, GSC or Custodes. If you are scraping a 50% win rate into one of these factions, but are now even worse in the rest, its not good. (And you also need to deal with Necrons, Thousand Sons, Tyranids etc).

Karol wrote:


Over the 3 editions I have seen people play a ton of units that were old, bad looking (to me and in general world view sense of the models), the models that are good fly off the shelfs. Impossible to get them. Bad models on the other hand, may look great. And if someone cares a lot for outside of game aspects, it can help to deal with an army being bad. But I don't think the argument works on Timmy and his marines getting beaten by Jimmies custodes. He doesn't want to be told that in 10-15 years, when he grows up, has a home, is more mature and sofisticated, he will learn to not care and like to paint. Because for Timmy what matters is that he is not having fun now, and Jimmy is. And in 6 months Jimmy may no longer be playing and Timmy will be left with an investment that wasn't very fun.

We're a bit astray but connected to the topic, what you say is true not just for timmy but for us too. We play for fun and have got enough problems and unfunny thing to do besides, playing those games is having fun with people, if it doesn't provide then what's the point?

As for like painting, like modelling etc that's an advice I'd totally give but knowing that in the ends its a matter of taste so you can't force people into liking it. For a hobby with that much investment it's a great shame to be bereft of its fun. I think everyone agrees on that ( for once )

Andykp wrote:

They could not play them, play a unit that is a bit “worse” but still not bad and maybe win but have an army they were proud of. Instead they are being WAAC, even if that cost is over paying for horrible models you know you hate.

What if they proxied them with something cooler? Then everyone wins or would you still be mad?

Well then you run in to a different problem. There will be people whose armies are bad, or were bad for years. Or ones whose armies just got better or mid tier now. And suddenly someone pops out and say they are going to use GK terminators as custodes, because same bases and halbards with guns=zero confusion, and Crow makes a great blade champion, while Voldus is a few letters away from Valdor. Oh you are going to get some "no" reactions from those people. Especialy if they in the past were told a no.

In places where proxies are okey, w40k meta gets muddied a lot, because why would someone punish themselfs with an army X, when they can print one themselfs at 1/10th the price or buy them at 1/4th the cost from their friendly local recaster. Often before GW actualy manages to send the models for the army to your country. There are some super talented people in all parts of europe that "deliver" full files 2-3 weeks after the art being show by GW.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

They could not play them, play a unit that is a bit “worse” but still not bad and maybe win but have an army they were proud of. Instead they are being WAAC, even if that cost is over paying for horrible models you know you hate.

What if they proxied them with something cooler? Then everyone wins or would you still be mad?

Not sure it matters since nobody is actually disagreeing with you that GW dropped the ball. Read Andy's full post again and they already answered that:

Andykp wrote:
The rules being bad isn’t good either. The fact that one unit is so much stronger than others so that players will exploit that isn’t great, but that is a facet the players have agency over. We can’t remake the models, we can convert them or proxy but the models are the models. The fact that players will exploit these things to try and win and be happy to play piss ugly models to boot is on the players. You don’t have to exploit a strong unit to get an edge, winning isn’t everything and maybe other things should be more important.

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

They could not play them, play a unit that is a bit “worse” but still not bad and maybe win but have an army they were proud of. Instead they are being WAAC, even if that cost is over paying for horrible models you know you hate.

What if they proxied them with something cooler? Then everyone wins or would you still be mad?

Not sure it matters since nobody is actually disagreeing with you that GW dropped the ball. Read Andy's full post again and they already answered that:

Andykp wrote:
The rules being bad isn’t good either. The fact that one unit is so much stronger than others so that players will exploit that isn’t great, but that is a facet the players have agency over. We can’t remake the models, we can convert them or proxy but the models are the models. The fact that players will exploit these things to try and win and be happy to play piss ugly models to boot is on the players. You don’t have to exploit a strong unit to get an edge, winning isn’t everything and maybe other things should be more important.

I'm not asking you.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

They could not play them, play a unit that is a bit “worse” but still not bad and maybe win but have an army they were proud of. Instead they are being WAAC, even if that cost is over paying for horrible models you know you hate.

What if they proxied them with something cooler? Then everyone wins or would you still be mad?

Not sure it matters since nobody is actually disagreeing with you that GW dropped the ball. Read Andy's full post again and they already answered that:

Andykp wrote:
The rules being bad isn’t good either. The fact that one unit is so much stronger than others so that players will exploit that isn’t great, but that is a facet the players have agency over. We can’t remake the models, we can convert them or proxy but the models are the models. The fact that players will exploit these things to try and win and be happy to play piss ugly models to boot is on the players. You don’t have to exploit a strong unit to get an edge, winning isn’t everything and maybe other things should be more important.

I'm not asking you.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were having a private conversation asking someone to repeat themselves on a public forum.

Removed - rule #1 please

Dudeface wrote:


Sorry, I didn't realise you were having a private conversation asking someone to repeat themselves on a public forum.

Stop being an ass and looking for an argument.

The conversation isn't private, but I'm looking for one person's answer because they put forth a viewpoint I was interested in. Yours doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Come on this is a public forum he is free to add or comment if he so wishes.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Sorry, I didn't realise you were having a private conversation asking someone to repeat themselves on a public forum.

Stop being an ass and looking for an argument.

The conversation isn't private, but I'm looking for one person's answer because they put forth a viewpoint I was interested in. Yours doesn't add anything to the conversation.

It was a viewpoint they'd already answered very comprehensively. Andy clearly established they thought the rules were not balanced and this wasn't good enough. They stated the bad sculpts are bad irrespective of the ability to proxy them.

They also made it clear they're more annoyed at the sculpts than the rules, although they feel that the players can opt to self police and not use broken rules for advantage.

You already have what you're asking for, to repeatedly reiterate feels like you want a different answer and or to bait a certain response out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Come on this is a public forum he is free to add or comment if he so wishes.

It's OK, Hecton is happy to comment on my form and prior stances, theirs is to try and back someone into a corner and make a pro-GW or anti-competitive statement then lord over about game design and how terrible it all is.

Andykp wrote:
Instead they are being WAAC, even if that cost is over paying for horrible models you know you hate.

That is not what WAAC means.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Instead they are being WAAC, even if that cost is over paying for horrible models you know you hate.

That is not what WAAC means.

If you don't decide your list based on throwing darts at your miniature collection to see what your list includes then you are win at all costs, get with the program /sarcasm.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


That is not what WAAC means.

Yeah, well, that poster is looking to criticize anyone who dislikes the current state of the game as WAAC.

Hecaton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


That is not what WAAC means.

Yeah, well, that poster is looking to criticize anyone who dislikes the current state of the game as WAAC.

Aaand there we go.

WAAC seems to be used the same way the N or F word gets invoked. You dislike someone, no matter what they are, who they are, what they do you call them a nazi or fasist. Sometimes I wish people were just allowed to say F you to someone, would be less confusing and more on point to the argument at hand.

There are two different F words, and they are quite different from each other.

I can understand wanting to use one, but the other will put you in hot water for very obvious reasons. The same goes for the N word.

I'm late to the thread and don't plan on posting a lot in it, but to me it looks like Andy said he considers spamming the max number of the terrible Desolator models despite hating them just so you can win is WAAC.

Now, I don't know where I draw the line at WAAC, or how I define quintessential WAACness, but this might qualify for me.

If you actually LIKE the Desolators, I wouldn't consider it it WAAC. But buying $240 CAD of stuff that you hate just to win...

I think that if not WAAC, it's at least close enough to it that some people will see it that way.

PenitentJake wrote:
I think that if not WAAC, it's at least close enough to it that some people will see it that way.

Some people will call anything they don't like WAAC. But words still have meanings and the term is Win At ALL Costs. Prioritizing in-game effectiveness over aesthetics is having priorities that aren't the same as yours but that doesn't make it WAAC. WAAC is about cheating/rules lawyering, seal clubbing, etc, where you are willing to bend or break all of the rules in pursuit of victory.

Dudeface wrote:


Aaand there we go.

What? Upset that someone's being called out for using "WAAC" as a way to try to ad hominem people who have complaints about the game they don't like?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm late to the thread and don't plan on posting a lot in it, but to me it looks like Andy said he considers spamming the max number of the terrible Desolator models despite hating them just so you can win is WAAC.

Now, I don't know where I draw the line at WAAC, or how I define quintessential WAACness, but this might qualify for me.

If you actually LIKE the Desolators, I wouldn't consider it it WAAC. But buying $240 CAD of stuff that you hate just to win...

I think that if not WAAC, it's at least close enough to it that some people will see it that way.

No, win at all costs implies bad sportsmanship. Nothing of the sort going on in the example provided.

It's just another way of trying to say "If a player beats me, they're a bastard!"

Well, that's fine- we'll go with your definitions.

It's not WAAC.

It's just stupid.

Maybe I'm just poor, but spending a quarter G on models you hate seems really dumb. But fine, if you say not WAAC, I'm cool with that.

Certainly not rational though.

It is different goals.

It is a winning prioritization logic colloquially known as being a "competitive player", but WAAC tends to include actually cheating.

PenitentJake wrote:
Certainly not rational though.

Not everyone has your budget constraints.

Not everyone shares your priorities.

Someone is not irrational just because they prioritize on-table performance over aesthetics and have the money to pursue competitive play.

PenitentJake wrote:
Well, that's fine- we'll go with your definitions.

It's not WAAC.

It's just stupid.

Maybe I'm just poor, but spending a quarter G on models you hate seems really dumb. But fine, if you say not WAAC, I'm cool with that.

Certainly not rational though.

Decently rational. I think that some people approach 40k as a game, and relish the battle of wits - they'd rather lose a fun game where you're both trying to beat each other than win one where their opponent held one hand behind their back. So when people say "trying to win is unsportsmanlike" (more or less), they think, bs, I can't have fun if people act like that. They may also care about fluff or aesthetics to a certain degree.

Hang in a minute! I take a bit of time off the forum and it all gets silly.

Hecaton, I did answer about proxying as dusface said, it’s right there in the post.

The rules for those models suck, the models suck harder. Simple.

And as I understand it WAAC stands for win at all cost? Is that not right?? You can infer what you like but that’s what it means literally.

In this case the cost is having an army, you the owner think is horrible and ugly. No comments on sportsmanship or anything like that, just a comment on the cost of the desire to win.

There was no ad hominem attacks (another favourite internet BS term). Just an observation that some people in the hobby community (no one in particular on here because I don’t know of anyone who has done it) will happily pay over the odds for ugly as sin models just to win. Models they wouldn’t have touched but the rules got good.

None of that was an attack on anyone here’s character because I don't know anyone who has done it. Just the people I sold them too.

Andykp wrote:
And as I understand it WAAC stands for win at all cost?

Correct. Win at ALL costs. Cheating is WAAC. Rules lawyering is WAAC. Seal clubbing is WAAC. Prioritizing in-game performance over aesthetics is not.

Andykp wrote:
There was no ad hominem attacks (another favourite internet BS term). Just an observation that some people in the hobby community (no one in particular on here because I don’t know of anyone who has done it) will happily pay over the odds for ugly as sin models just to win. Models they wouldn’t have touched but the rules got good.

Yes, it is an ad hominem attack. Calling someone WAAC is an attack on their character.

GW is bad for designing those models, and the players have much less power in this situation than GW to rectify the situation; the fact that you're putting all the responsibility on them rather than GW is very telling. You don't seem to think that GW has an obligation to act ethically, but the players do. GW is beyond ordinary sin, in your eyes, it seems.

Hecaton wrote:
Yes, it is an ad hominem attack. Calling someone WAAC is an attack on their character.

To be fair, that's not what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem argument is an argument of the form "you suck therefore X". Merely saying "you suck" is aggressive and insulting but not an ad hominem.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Yes, it is an ad hominem attack. Calling someone WAAC is an attack on their character.

To be fair, that's not what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem argument is an argument of the form "you suck therefore X". Merely saying "you suck" is aggressive and insulting but not an ad hominem.

Well, that's implied. "You suck therefore you are responsible for GW's bad decisions, not GW."