How do you all...

[Schlitzaf]

If you guys do, reconcile WAAC Gaming vs Fluff Gaming. If you saw me in person I'd proberly fit under a WAAC gamer, but I try enjoy and play for fluffly lists. But I am finding it more and more diffcult to reconcile the differences. One example is current list I am working on, (see my newest post in armylist section) is Rough Riders. They are a unit I have there for almost complete fluffly reasons as IG section of the army is supposed to represent a mixed regiment, of Vostroyans and a Fuedal World. The Conscript, Lord Comminsar and Rough Riders are Fuedal World sections, the Rough Riders are the knight, and the sarg the Lord, Conscripts the peasents and Lord Comminsar the squire (ironic that squire is better then the lord).
However WAAC side of my is telling me drop them, and take a company command squad plus maybe a Russ or two Hydras.
Which is a better investment then the fluff part of the list. So how do you guys if at all, reconcile those parts of you?
Thank you for any response.

[DarkLink]

Because WAAC is a misnomer. Very few people are actually WAAC. 99% of the people stereotyped as WAAC are actually just competitive players. We play not solely to win, but to compete, which is a subtle but very significant difference. Trying to win does nothing to prevent you from having funny stories to tell about the fluff afterwards. There are plenty of competitive players that try and make unusual units and lists work, because they find it fun. So it all comes down to which units you enjoy playing. If you like the idea of a unit, but the rules are so bad you just can't have fun on the table with it because it never does anything or dies immediately or whatever, then it's up to you to decide whether or not it's worth taking.

[Kyban]

The real WAAC players are the ones that spam the most efficient units whenever they play, or at least that's how my FLGS looks at it. We do a tournament every so often that encourages list diversity.

[ElectricPaladin]

First of all, I think it's important to distinguish some ideas that you've stuck together.

We have the fluffy player. He doesn't care about winning or losing, he just wants to play the game. He probably plays Warhammer kind of like a historical, with an interest in re-enacting famous battles of the Dark Millenium. He may also be really into painting and modeling, collecting, or some combination of the two. This is the guy who owns the entire Salamanders Chapter - not because he wants to play with it, but because he wants to look at his glass cabinet and say "I own the entire Salamanders Chapter, and their shoulder pads are accurate down to the font."

Then, we have the competitive player. He plays to win. However, as a competitive player, he's interested in competition. He makes the hardest lists he can with the army or armies he plays, sure, but he doesn't cheat, he doesn't willingly exploit an opponent's rules errors (tactical errors, on the other hand...), and he won't waste his time boosting his ego by stomping on n00bs. That's just bad behavior, and has nothing to do with competition.

And then we have WAAC - Win At All Costs. Also known as TFG, for That F*cking Guy. This guy doesn't care about competition, he just cares about winning. He'll exploit every loophole in the rules - not just great combos, but bad behavior like blatant modeling for advantage - he'll cheat, and he'll find new players and tear their armies to shreds for fun.

I don't see these elements as a continuum. I see them as discrete parts to every gamer's personality. All of us are a little competitive. All of us have some concern for style. All of us have the potential to be jerks.

Honestly, I think you should play the way that makes you happy. If you want to play competitively and not care one whit about style or fluff, then that's what you should do. You're not WAAC or TFG - you're just primarily a competitive player. Go for it. Get down with your competitive, gamey self.

[Capt Forsythe]

Don't cheat. Obviously.

Understand that there are a lot of legitimate grey areas in 40k. They don't always have to favor your army. Think of the general design philosophy of 40k, and make cooperative decision with an opponent. Make it precedent with that particular opponent. If it favors your army, great. DO NOT change that precedent when that rules interpretation can be used against your army.

There is almost nothing more walk-away-from-the-table annoying as an opponent that changes precedent only when it advantages their army. That is WAAC gaming.

Stomp the dog out of newbies. Do it respectfully. There are tons of ways to beat an army without smashing the dignity of the newbies. Being a friendly and gracious winner will help them get better and encourage them continue with the hobby. Also it becomes your responsibility to help them learn if they are willing to listen. If they are not, DO NOT continue to give them your commentary. If you are both of age, offer to buy them a beer afterwards. Sit and talk about 40K, sports, girls, whatever.

Forgot to add: Always offer them a rematch at a later date.

[ElectricPaladin]

Stomp the dog out of newbies. Do it respectfully. There are tons of ways to beat an army without smashing the dignity of the newbies. Being a friendly and gracious winner will help them get better and encourage them continue with the hobby. Also it becomes your responsibility to help them learn if they are willing to listen. If they are not, DO NOT continue to give them your commentary. If you are both of age, offer to buy them a beer afterwards. Sit and talk about 40K, sports, girls, whatever.


I'd like to second this. I've received some great beatings in my time, from great players who helped me understand what I was doing wrong and become a better player. I've walked up to some of the best players at my FLGS and said "let's play a game - I could learn a lot from losing to you!" They're usually thrilled and eager... and sometimes, I win anyway.

The trick is to find out how much reflection the newbie wants before, during, and after the game, and then stick to it.

Also, the trick is to know yourself. There's nothing wrong with telling some eager newb "I'm here for a hardcore vet game today - maybe next time." He'll find someone else to play with.

[Schlitzaf]

Thanks guys, I appreciate this, it is not just playing how I feel (ok well it kinda is), but my regular game envoriment, is very competitive based, so I've kinda grown on competitive play. But I've always had diffcult of balancing the competitive play with my fluff side (in 5th I would run the Black Tide or Rhino Rush Build, instead of Dakka Templars you normally see), but I've have to make compromises else the builds I ran would be rampaged over (3 Vindis vs Black Tide is not very fun, likewise Jaws spam, or Grey Knights versus Melee Templars) so by end of 5th I ran a very hybridized Dakka-melee Templar build.

It is often problem with me now, is I can't decide how I want to go espacially with my regular envoriment, I appreciate the advice everyone. I think I'll go with the build I posted, maybe make the change for two Hydras later on.

[Capt Forsythe]

I guess I didn't understand your question.

Are you looking for permission to run a competitive list? Permission Granted.

If it is financially infeasible to have both options, I would say build competitive first, since your homeground is competitive, and slowly build up your fluffy option as you can, then run them dependent on your situation.

[Schlitzaf]

I guess I didn't understand your question.

Are you looking for permission to run a competitive list? Permission Granted.

If it is financially infeasible to have both options, I would say build competitive first, since your homeground is competitive, and slowly build up your fluffy option as you can, then run them dependent on your situation.

Not looking for permission, no, just wondering how would reconcile those two playstyles. I have ran and run optimized/competitive builds before, but i was wondering if anyone has found ways to run a competitive build, yet still keep it fluffy and fun. I really need to get better a writing questions

[newtoncain]

Well there are WAAC players, then there are the WAACAHs players. WAACAH players are the ones we all hate. Its ok to be completetive and want to win, but being an A.H. while doing is so just uncalled for.:mad:

[doom-kitten]

Personally, I make lists based around look. I couldn't care if it's fluffy or competitive as long as it looks good on the table. When designing lists I also consider it from the armies perspective, a marine planet-fall army intended to establish landing zones is not going to look like a standard marine force and may even come off as competitive. To me it's theme that matters most as well as overall imagery. I have little experience with sixth edition and the crappy HP rules have me sadly putting a large number of my DTs away, as well as the inability of embarked troops to capture objectives.