DC: 60+ S(BG) G++ MB+++ I+ P40k5A97 # D++ A+++++ /w WD2?? R+ T(S)
- DC - Collector
- 60+ - born late 1960s
- S(BG) - Winner Best General
- G++ - decent rules knowledge
- MB+++ - Winner painting contests; scratchbuilder & terrain builder
- I+ - basic pictures only
- P40k5A97 # - 40k5 Apocalypse; started 1997, now only occasional games
- D++ - traveled interstate for RTTs
- A+++++ /w - vast collection of (easily) 1,000+ minis for several games & armies to field whatever works
- WD2?? - bought a few early WDs in the 200s
- R+ - garage gamer among friends
- T(S) - admitted spammer of rumors & rules
To save time and aggravation, I'm simply going to state my position on various topics so that I can refer to them and not have to argue them in forums, nor to re-explain or re-clarify things more than once.
The Most Important Rule
Warhammer 40,000 is an involving game, with many different armies, weapons and possibilities. In a game of this size and complexity there are bound to be occasions where a particular situation lies outside these rules, often when unusual models interact. At other times you may know the rule is covered but you just can't seem to find the right page. Then again you may know the rule, but the reality of exactly where your models are on the table may make it a really close call - measuring assault moves and deciding if a key model is in cover are classic examples.
All of these instances can lead to arguments, so it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game. Winning at any cost is less important than making sure that both players - not just the victor - have a good time. If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner. Many players simply like to roll off and let the dice decide who is right, allowing them to get straight back to blasting each other to pieces. After the game you can happily continue your discussion ofthe finer points of the rules, or agree how you will both interpret them should the same situation happen again. You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as 'house rules').
The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours.
[Jervis Johnson, Warhammer 40,000 - 5th Ed. p.2]
I look at WAAC as identical to "playing to win, by the biggest margin in the fewest turns possible". I see WAAC as stretching armies, rules, and things to the limit of what GW allows, and no further. I think WAAC is a valid (though boring) playstyle that has gotten a bad rep due to some players forgetting that "winning" still requires that you actually follow the rules, rather than looking for "loopholes" where it doesn't say they can't do something.
I think that WAAC necessarily has a lower Sports (because "fun" can't be part of the army design), while Theme and Comp automatically go to zero (because winning isn't a Theme, nor does most-powerful enter into Comp). GW generally leaves few ways to optimize things so, ultimately, things degenerate down to a few "best" options for smashing face.
I am perfectly capable of designing and piloting WAAC lists, and have no shame in admitting to have done so in the past. I now believe that excessive WAAC play is ultimately destructive to the hobby, as it is too narrow and limiting for all players to enjoy.
I very much like the idea of Comp which says that players should field a wide variety of things, rather than a narrow selection of only the smallest selection what works best. I fully recognize that this results in a different set of overall winners and that some armies would be better at this than others, but also feel that it's nice to see a bit more diversity.
I believe in objective Comp vs subjective Theme, and recognize that universal checklists won't be perfect. But I believe that they can be "good enough" to encourage more-varied lists. I also believe that a good Theme will be recognized by one's opponents to outweigh any minor structural Comp penalty.
I believe that players should go into an event knowing what their Comp scores would be, based on clear Comp guidelines and standards. I also believe that Comp should be a strongly punitive, rather than restrictive. That is, a player can bring whatever they like, but they would just be penalized for doing so.
I think that Comp has a lot of potential in both casual and competitive play, and am hopeful that GW brings it back as a part of how 40k should be played moving forward.
KOG light is my skirmish (5-10 models/side) wargame for 1/144-scale 30mm-tall robots, replacing Heavy Gear:
It is a hyper-streamlined game, only 4 pages of rules, 3 pages of armies & 1 page of summary.
KOG light Development Blog
- Warhammer 40k
- Epic Armageddon
- Battlefleet Gothic
- Warhammer Fantasy
- Ogre / GEV
- Heavy Gear
- Flames of War
- Magic: the Gathering
- Craftworld Tian-Bing (8k Eldar)
- Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" (4k Imperial Guard)
- Knights Sovereign (4k Space Marines)
- Templars Illuminati (3k Chaos Marines)
- Ordo Lucifer (1k Inquisition)
- Order of the Sable Cross (1k Sisters of Battle)
- Eldar - unbuilt
- Imperial Navy
- Spyre Hunters
- House Escher
- Dogs of War (RoR-based)
- Empire - on hold
- Southern Milicia -
- CEF - unbuilt
Flames of War
- German PanzerKompanie (15mm) - partly-assembled
Aside from my "kitchen sink" (multiple units of nearly everything) Eldar, it seems that I have a horrible, horrible propensity for picking loser armies in the grand scheme of GW armies.
Eldar - Biel-Tan
This was my first GW army, and the only one which seems to have been more-or-less fully-playable from the time I first bought my first model, to present. The "worst" I've suffered here was the hiatus that when 40k3 was released, until the CJ Harlequin list came out. Otherwise, I've had the good fortune not to lose the ability to play any significant number of models. However, it irritates the hell out of me that the only Eldar Craftworld concept that Phil Kelly didn't really carry over is Biel-Tan - the Craftworld I played as. Which is why my Eldar idled as soon as Craftworlds were pulled, in favor of Drop Guard.
This is where things started going downhill in a hurry. I got these in the starter box, and actually traded my Marines away for more and more Dark Eldar. I played them for a few years, and was darn lucky to trade them off to another guy who got far more into Dark Eldar than I did. Nice guy, too bad about his army choice. I consider this one of my luckier army exits, as GW hadn't yet published the 2004-2005 Catalog moving the entire range to Collector status.
Chaos Marines - Fallen Angels
This was my second major army, and I got it up to tournament-size. You can read the details in my CSM P&M Blog. Suffice to say, GW loves MoCU about as much as TSons, and I just got totally screwed on my army build.
This was my third major army, and I did fairly well here. Aside for the Griffon going on hiatus for the better part of a decade... As a staple of the 40k universe, I'm glad this is a safe bet for most models. And in 4th, Drop Camo Guard was awesome, though the current 5E Codex doesn't do a thing for my Light Infantry / Drop Guard / Camo. It's always fun watching the pendulum swing...
Space Marines - Grey Knights core
Back in Rogue Trader, in Realms of Chaos, Slaves to Darkness, most Grey Knights weren't Psykers, and they were more or less a normal. So I built a shooty countercharge SM army on 6s, with just a couple Librarians as the Psykers. Lo and behold, Daemonhunters comes out and nukes the entire Grey Knights concept. Then the Marines decide it'll be 10-man units instead of small Las/Plas squads. Need a Reset button, anyone?
I started this army as Allies, bought up a whole bunch of stuff, and then saw GW pull the plug before I got it moving along. Traded and sold away all of the pieces as a learning lesson.
Dogs of War
Back when I was a FLGS gamer, there was a budding WFB start with the new 6th Edition, playing the Border Princes campaign. With the DoW having the best sculpts bar none, I selected them as my army, and had a romping good time in the Campaign. I stuck with them, using Empire-based models as the basis for generic units. Of course, come 7th Edition, GW pulls the plug and I'm stuck with no official army for my most expensive and interesting unit conversions. A year into this, I've decided I'm boycotting Fantasy until things are set right.
- Eldar = low interest, due to inability to effectively play Biel-Tan
- Imperial Guard = lower interest, due to loss of Drop Troops / Light Infantry / Camo
- Space Marines = rebuilding, and waiting on the Blood Angels Codex
- Chaos Marines = rebuilding from scratch
- Dogs of War = shelved indefinitely
thinking about it, this is probably the lowest level of excitement I've had for GW / 40k since I started playing.
- 40k Imperial Guard - Finish buying, finish building, then finish painting
- 40k Sisters - build & paint
- 40k Marines - tear down and rebuild
- 40k Templars - build, pending SM bitz
this is the tip of the iceberg, just the stuff I'm most interested in ATM
Wagers & Contests
1. follow $350 budget
- 2 Shadowswords
- 3 Basilisks
- 3 Valkyries
- 2 Sentinels
2. build IG stuff
- Baneblade & 2 Shadowswords
- 3 Basilisks & 1 Hellhound; possible Medusa?
- 3 Valkyries & 3 Sentinels
- finish Guardsmen & Commissars
- rearm Chimeras
3. paint all IG stuff
- Baneblade & 2 Shadowswords
- 6 Russes (incl. Atlas & Demolishers)
- 4 Basilisks (incl. Medusa)
- 8 Chimeras (incl. Hellhounds)
- 3 Valkyries & 3 Sentinels
- ~40 Guardsmen & ~2 Commissars
progress goes here!
updated 17th Apr. 2009