How To Be A FAAC Player


Pimpcron shows you how to be a Fun-at-all-costs player. But it may not be what you want to hear.

Hey humans! Your best-est pal Pimpcron is here to teach you how to be everyone’s first pick to play with at the gaming group.

FIRST OFF: What Do You Want Out of This Game?

You have to be honest with yourself. Why do you play this game?

Do you play to win using all of the skill, strategy. points-managing, and shiny new nasty you can fit on the table to obliterate your opponent?

Do you like a completely fair fight where tactics win the day?

Does an unfair (but fluffy) fight bother you?

These are the types of questions you need to ask. Because gaming is a lot like experimenting with S&M: if you both go into this with different expectations, someone’s getting hurt. If you have vastly different ideas of how hard is “hard”, one of you ends up crying and the other apologizing. I learned something important from that infographic they put out when 40k players were interviewed a couple months ago. The majority of people said they liked “casual” play. But just like the “black & blue dress – white & gold dress” thing, two people can look at the same thing very differently.

blue-gold-dressThe dress that nearly tore humanity apart.

The person who likes to play full-force with his army to win is very different from the person who likes to recreate narrative games from the fluff to see if they can change the outcome. To the fluff player, the competitive player is a jerk. To the competitive player, the fluff player doesn’t get the point behind this game. But both of them think they like to play “casual” games.

So you have to fully understand what you want out of this game, and be honest with yourself. There is no wrong answer: only a wrong choice in opponent.

For instance, what I enjoy about playing this game is having a fun time with another person. The main reason why I originally got into this game was to make new friends and get out of the house. So win or lose, I just want to have a few laughs. My preferred game is one where we are as evenly matched as possible and our strategy wins the game, but narrative games are another favorite.

Now To Find The Right Opponents

Once you know what you really want out of this game, you need to find the right player to play against. There appears to be a spectrum of players in this game and usually someone in your slot or one of the slots next to you are ideally compatible. Outside of that, you might run into trouble. The spectrum runs like this:

  1. All-The-Nasty Players who play to win using any means
  2. Competitive Players who play to win but like some boundaries
  3. Strategic Players who play to win but like an even playing field
  4. Casual Players who try to win, but really just want to play with the models they like
  5. Narrative Players who know care more about telling a good story and winning doesn’t matter as much
  6. Fluff Players who have little regard for winning, and just want to relive the spirit of the fluff and enjoy sometimes playing games with impossible odds (but a good story).

It’s funny when you look at this and realize that nobody will mind playing someone beneath them on the spectrum, but playing someone who is higher than you will make it harder to enjoy your game.

Cat-being-jerkPictured: a WAAC Kitty

So here is the conundrum: If you are a upper-tier player on the spectrum, you will be seen as a dick by all of the lower tiers unless you tone down your game. If you are a lower-tier player, it will be much easier to find agreeable players to play you, but you might get your teeth knocked in. There is no wrong answer here, but you can easily see that your choice in opponent will make or break your game. Which leads to my next point:

Here’s How To Be The FAAC Player In Your Group

This may not sit well with a lot of you, but if you want to be the go-to guy everyone wants to play in your gaming group, you have to make sure they have fun. You have to find out what kind of gamer they are, and try your hardest to meet them in the middle. Because just like the choice of opponent can make or break your game, it will make or break theirs as well. So the best way to do this is discuss the game with your opponent ahead of time, when you are making your lists. You should compare lists and make sure that everything you guys are bringing have a counter in the other person’s list. You also have to discuss if you are playing competitively or casually.

This is because I’ve learned something from experience. People who like this game will generally enjoy a game of 40k even if it isn’t their favorite way to play the game. So most level-headed human beings are willing to bump their game up or down a couple notches on that scale if you just discuss it with them. Despite what you might hear from the internet, most players in this game are pretty nice people.

So an All-The-Nasty player and a Fluff player want to have a game. But they follow their good friend Pimpcron’s advice and discuss it first. They choose the mission together and quickly realize that a hardcore game and a fluffy game are out of the question. Like cats and dogs people. So they both adjust their game accordingly and end up somewhere between a Casual game and a Strategic game. The Fluff player tries to up his game a bit and actually try to win while the Hardcore player tones his list down a bit and also tries to win. But there are no nasty surprises in their lists, and they both have a better understanding of what they’re getting into.

Without that discussion, one of them will end up like my Prom date: disappointed and crying.

Anything else to add my dear readers? What type of player are you on that scale? Be honest.

Pimpcron signature 3

DFTDG logo button for BoLSShorehammer Button for BoLS

  • Grasshopper

    “Despite what you might hear from the internet, most players in this game are pretty nice people.”

    I should print this out, and glue it to my monitor. I forget all too easy…

    • Nyyppä

      Most are also WAAC types whether they know it or not. That does not make them “not nice”. It’s just a style of play. Damaging one for the rest but they enjoy it and it’s ok.

      • jcdent

        Well, most people wouldn’t mind winning; it’s a bad mindset, but it’s hard to shake off and just enjoy the process. But some people master it, like game masters and stuff.

        Though it might be different: the GM, by definition, has to lose in a fun and interesting manner, since his actual victory is in everyone having fun. When the two players are competing, they have more of a stake in it.

        I hope I’ll one day enlightened enough to play the OPFOR in narrative games and such.

        • Nyyppä

          True, also in no way related to my comment.

      • A lot of people mistake waac for competitive.

        Competitive players will take nasty hard lists but will play within the confines of the rules.

        WAAC players will do that and also cheat.

        • Nyyppä

          Not much difference there. Both abuse the rules to the max with no regard to what is or is not plausible. WAACs would cheat, true, but almost never can because their opponents also know the rules. So, the theory is different but in practice it’s the same thing.

          • Cheating and not cheating is the biggest issue.

            If you are a competitive player, you want other players to push the rules to their max.

            If you are not a competitive player, this is annoying.

            WAACs against competitive players – the players know the rules.

            WAACs against casuals, they will often get away with cheating because the casuals don’t know all the rules.

            Competitive players against casuals – there won’t be any cheating.

            The end result will be the same in that the casual player gets stomped on.

          • Nyyppä

            Being a casual does not mean that one does not know all the rules. You only need to know all the cheese anyway. Knowing what Tervigons do to the letter is pretty useless in the big picture when they are almost never fielded. I play nids and I could not tell their stats or available gear even though I am a fluffy player. I can tell you what Warp Spiders, WKs, various deathstars and such do though.

            Anyway, we are talking about styles here. People do what they must to win or just do not care a lot about winning or only care about fluff. This is why we have WAACs, casuals and fluff bunnies. Let’s not make this a special snowflake pronoun competition, social justice bs has no place in wargaming.

          • amaximus167

            Odd, I didn’t see anyone bringing up social justice until you did…

          • Nyyppä

            Nitpicking on definitions because of some miniscule irrelevant nuance is a social justice bs thing. WAAC vs. “Competitive” is just like that, nitpicking on definitions because of some miniscule irrelevant nuance.

            Not interested in having a further discussion about this so if you have a need for the final word, have at it.

          • Never said being a casual always means you won’t know the rules, but competitive players tend to mostly know the rules… and casual players are a mixed bag. Some know the rules well. Some don’t really know them at all which is where the waac player would truly have an advantage.

          • Nyyppä

            It’s right there in “WAACs against casuals, they will often get away with cheating because the casuals don’t know all the rules.”

          • Sorry. Inject “casuals often don’t know all the rules” instead of “casuals don’t know all the rules” instead.

          • ZeeLobby

            THIS. WAAC players give us competitive players a bad name.

          • The difference is that if you talk through your games with competitive players they will work with you to ensure a competitive game. If you’re sick of crazy formations ask them to play an old school CAD vs CAD game, or talk to them about what they can try that gives you an advantage because you’re always losing. Competitive players want a challenge, they’ll work with you to make the game a challenge (and you can learn a lot from good players if you want to play practice games where you talk through mistakes etc).

          • Nyyppä

            I disagree. Nothing in that is beyond WAACs, they are the same group after all.

          • Valeli

            Cheating/Not Cheating is a huge difference.

            I might not like someone for min/maxing and taking advantage of GW’s poor ruleset, but I’ll blame GW for allowing them to do it, not the player for doing it. And that’s the type of thing that can largely get sorted out before the game if you chat a little as the article suggests.

            I will blame someone for saying their lascannons are twinlinked when they weren’t though. … more of the “cheating” I’ve found irritates me even more than this, because it involves obnoxious arguments that have little merit. One can either say “oh my god, fine, whatever,” or have a “super fun” argument over the point. And then the next point. And then the next.

            People who do that have a personality issue, not an army-list issue.

        • Alpharius

          An upcoming 30K event has people separating into groups:

          WAAC – Win at all costs
          HFCB – Hard-fought competitive battle

          FAAC – Fluff at all costs

          I don’t think “fun” is mutually exclusive from at least the second category.

      • wibbling

        When you sole interest in the game is to win – regardless – then you are selfish. Such people are not remotely nice.

        • Nyyppä

          Or just competitive in 40k which is what most of the WAACs seem to be. Trying to win does not make someone an a-hole.

          • ZeeLobby

            THISSSSSS. I’ve been to tons of tournaments, and the majority of people are a blast to play against. Doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to beat you though!

          • grim_dork

            What I read in wibbling’s comment is not that you are a selfish for wanting to win a game of 40k, but that you are selfish when that’s your only interest in playing at all.
            It’s a sentiment I agree with.

          • Nyyppä

            It’s an agenda among others. Not a lesser one to fluffy experience, just different. To these people minmaxing and winning = fun. Fun is always the goal.

        • That’s silly. When I play racquet ball my goal is to win, that doesn’t make me not nice

      • I don’t buy that it’s most or even very many, honestly

        • Nyyppä

          Yet they control the scene even though they are not the most vocal group. That does not happen if they are a minority. There is no chain of command or similar structure in the community. The majority decides what flies or falls in the big picture.

          • amaximus167

            I think part of the complexity of this situation is, that the WAACs seem to spend more time at the store playing than the majority of the other players. I am in the fluff/narrative camp and only played at the local game store a few times. However, I shopped there a lot and the same few WAAC’ers were there almost every time I was in. Obviously, this is anecdotal and my perception could be skewed by a variety of factors however they were often there and very loudly WAACing. So even though they might be in the minority numbers wise, they are certainly out there in the trenches playing more often as well as playing more people. So statistically, they get more face time. If those are the players that are representing the game by being the most regular it can certainly skew the perception that they control the scene. Since, in your words, there is no chain of command it is easier for the loudest and worst offenders to control the situation on a social level. The frequency of the shop WAACers kept me and my group from playing in stores and instead had us in living rooms and basements. That means our kind of groups were out of the extra-social dynamic of 40k giving WAACers more face time with new and pick-up players.

            Once again, that was the situation where I was. Could be totally different where you are.

          • Nyyppä

            Looking at the nerd raging it’s not the WAACs that make most of the noise. Still they tend to control areas outside some living rooms and basements.

          • amaximus167

            Hahaha, to be fair, I meant making the noise publicly, not online. I also meant it in a ‘drumming up excitement/talking about the game,’ way, not complaining.

            But yes, nerd rage is often quite loud on the screen.

          • In what way do WAAC players control the scene? I think you mean competitive players, and even that is silly. They certainly run tournaments and play the most frequently (because as a competitive player practice is the best way to improve), but the vast majority of players don’t play in tournaments and don’t play that often

          • Nyyppä

            Most of the conversations about the rules are had in the WAAC context.

            There is no actual difference between WAAC and competitive. They are the people who do what ever their morals allow to win. Both bend or break the rules if they can get away with it. Many times tournament straight up allow that.

            WAACs are not exclusively tournament players.

          • Bend the rules? Like what?

          • Nyyppä

            Well, for example the 6th edition grenade rules in melee were commonly used in 7th to gain advantage even though in the BRB it explicitly says that only one grenade may be used by a unit per phase.

            That’s a minor one but there are ones like that for every army. For reference see Warp Spiders for example.

          • See, that to me is an example where the more narrative interpretation was being used, and now after the FAQ we’re stuck with the crappy RAW rules that competitive players tend to prefer. Personally I still play the old way because it’s way more cinematic (also almost none of my units can take grenades so it doesn’t benefit me and I think the 6th ed way is just better from a rules standpoint)

          • Nyyppä

            The “narrative” just “happened” to “conveniently” multiply the melee effectiveness of many units against vehicles, monsters and walkers. The rule is clear. That there is WAAC to the letter.

            I agree, other than psychics 6th was a lot better.

          • I don’t agree that the rule was clear (it says one grenade can be thrown in each phase and the using grenades in assault section explicitly says grenades aren’t thrown in assault), and the new interpretation also benefits tons of units (such as my mailerfiends) that I don’t think needed a buff, but the RAW people all play it that way now so the better interpretation loses out to the RAW one from the FAQ sadly

          • Nyyppä

            That’s the WAAC thinking I’m talking about. There is no throw or clamp attacks in the game. There’s shooting and melee. The WAACs just went and added 2 attack types out of thin air to support their armies to gain more power. The raw is in 1 per unit per phase already in the BRB. The FAQ even slaps the WAACs in the face by stating that. 😀

            But, again, that’s just one of many. The point was that majority of players are WAACs, proven among other things by that grenade cheat and the willingness to follow the bigger cheaters against all reason with other things just to get more bang for their buck. Out of the major players the daemons are the only one I can not think of being openly a tool for cheating with by the average gamer. It’s not like these people would not know what they are doing. The rules are not that unclear.

          • Admiral Raptor

            I think the grenade debacle just proved how few of us bothered to actually read the 7th ed rules. I know I only skimmed them. Hopefully 8th will be significantly cut down.

          • Drpx

            The grenade debacle was GW not being clear. If they’d said “one grenade can be used per phase” it would have cleared it up, but thrown implied shooting and in case no one’s noticed, there’s a lot of phases in the game where you can shoot.

          • Nyyppä

            1, 1 shooting phase on your turn.

            Overwatch is resolved like a shooting attack but explicitly is not one. Interceptor is not done with grenades…unless you are playing tau.

          • Nyyppä

            That is true.

          • It’s stupid to re litigate this but why not. The rules say that one grenade can be thrown per phase, which means one in the shooting phase and one in overwatch in the assault phase. The rules for assault state that the model replaces their attack with the grenade profile but can only make a single attack. It expressly says the grenade isn’t thrown. I get that whoever wrote the FAQ ruled it the way they did, but the reason people didn’t realize the rules change is that the wording was not remotely clear. Acting like reading it that way is ruling for advantage is silly, either interpretation advantages some units, either one is an advantage for someone.

          • Nyyppä

            Few corrections: “A model”, not “the model” (that alone should have been enough of a clue). The rule was ruled in the rules, not in the FAQ. Calling interpretations aimed to gain advantage interpretations aimed to gain advantage is not silly. There still are now throw or clamp attacks.

          • Again, both are interpretations

          • Drpx

            6th was when GW said, “yo Dawg I heard you like Apocalypse so let’s make it happen at 500 pts. Here’s a codex of nothing but Titans and the Imperium is now one army spread over two dozen books and PDFs.”

          • Nyyppä


          • Drpx

            “Thrown” not used. You could overwatch and intercept with grenade shooting attacks and even use them in the psychic phase if a power made it happen.

            GW ruled on the side of the argument that buffed vehicles, Imperial Knight and Dreadnoughts so they’d see more purchases so w/e but they’ve always let rules be murky because their focus was on selling models with rules tacked on as an afterthought.

          • Nyyppä

            That too is the WAAC thinking I was talking about.

          • You disagree that you can’t talk to your opponent about your expectations for the game and set guidelines for what you both bring to make the game more fair? Have you tried?

          • Nyyppä

            I disagree that that would make any difference. I would be under the same restrictions so it does not change things.

    • CatachanCommissar

      See, when my dad was calling me a FAAC player I thought he was being insulting, glad to figure out he actually loved me!

      I’ve found that players are great if you speak beforehand and agree on unit types and scenario. It’s pretty easy to find the type of guys you want to play with when you discuss before that you want to take this tower or rescue this general or defend this installation etc.

      Great article.

      • TenDM

        Yeah. I don’t think many players are jerks, they just default to their usual way of playing. If they’re used to WAAC matches they’re not going to read your mind and know that you’re not interested in that sort of play.

        • Grasshopper

          Yes, it’s all/mostly about the mind-reading thing: Its super okay to play competetive or waac – as long ab both opponents know what they are getting into. Consensuality and stuff. (It’s like with BDSM but with even more plastic.)

  • Sleeplessknight

    Also, regardless of where they are on the spectrum, some people are simply stuck in their ways and can’t turn off.

    Playing a different way is alien and unfathomable to them.

    • Bingo! That’s the part where I said you might not like what you hear. A big part of the key to being a FAAC player is caring about if your opponent has a fun time or not, which some people just can’t do.

    • euansmith

      That’s a great user name you’ve got there. I’m imagining some gaunt bloke in sinister armour; probably made by Kingdom Death in one of their rare lucid phases.

  • jcdent

    Fluffy and narrative players are myhical beasts as far as I’m concerned, while I have observed the abominable WAAC in the wild.

    Also, a fluff or narrative is not casual by any measure, if only because of how much thought must go into preparation and making it run smooth. You can just print out a netlist and leave everything else to dice rolls.
    You might also have narrative campaign players, who would need even more preparation.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I know plenty of fluff at all costs players. Are you an American by any chance? I hear the scene is more competitively focussed there.

      • jcdent

        How does fluff at all costs look, by the way?

        Naw, I’m Lithuanian. We might be too small and too poor to go for fluff/narrative games.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Someone who always takes full squads of 10 marines in realistic formations, who takes Inquisitorial squads with all the mixed troop types, not just the best ones. Someone whose CSM army actually has lots of CSM in it, Ork players who field Weirdboyz for fun etc etc. Not particularly concerned with winning, they want to represent their army on the table according to its fluff, not according to the most optimised formations etc.

          • jcdent

            The fiends!

          • My gaming group is about 20% fluff players, 70% casual/strategic, and 10% waac. But luckily all of them will play a fluffy game if you ask them.

          • euansmith

            Oddly, there are only seven people in Pimpcron’s gaming group.

          • Nyyppä

            The rest are various aliens?

          • The guy who is 71% WAAC must be a confusing dude to play with

          • SupPupPup

            I’d say they also play thematically. They can win, but they want to do it in a way that fits their conception of how their army would function.

          • LordKrungharr

            For CSM all the cult troops need the sacred number of models too, so 7 plague marines and 8 berserkers per squad.

          • amaximus167

            YEP! All my World Eaters and Bloodletters are in squads/divisible by 8.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation


          • jeff white

            you have found me! but, i still like to combat squad the marines…

          • Drpx

            Formations come in starting boxes now. Good luck telling the next gen newbies they’re doing it wrong when they buy supplements thinking that’s how the game works.

    • SupPupPup

      I’m a fluffy narrative bloke. Probably why I enjoy AoS so much. (the story is a bit ropey, so lots of room to improve it!).

      The best narrative games come from emergent stories that are created through the game. If you put to much thought and planning into it, it can feel forced and boring.

      I try to work behind the scenes, making tactical decisions that are fluffy and If i see a possible interesting scenario on the table that would be thematic I aim for it.

      • euansmith

        Its when that one little bloke refuses to die despite all the odds 🙂 or when that lone monster rampages through half an army before being felled by desperate hero on their last wound, or that elite unit that never lives up to their stat line.

        • Damistar

          I had the sole survivor of and Imperial Guard squad deal the last wound to an Eldar Avatar in assault. It was epic, and I kept reminding the Eldar player that “It’s true! An Imperial Guardsman with faith in he Emperor and his combat knife can best any foe!”

          • amaximus167

            One of my friends had a Space Marine scout that would not die. That scout ended up taking out a decent part of my force for being a single model. He ended up being the last enemy model left on the table after I managed to kill the rest of the army. It was crazy but a great time. Next game we played, he did the same thing. He was truly blessed.

  • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

    I think I am number 3. I most enjoy the tactical thinking and close games. Sometimes this means bringing the hardest list I can, but more often not. I love playing in clubs where you really get to know the other guy. You learn their level of play and their collection and can dial your army up or down to match them. That way everyone gets a good game, either player can win, I get to use fluffy units and try out new tactics. A 50:50 win lose ratio is actually a sign of success with this mindset.

    • I agree. I’m either a 3 or 4 usually depending on who I’m playing against. And what you said about tailoring your list to match your opponent is exactly what i do too. I have the best games this way!

  • Karru

    I have always been a collector first, gamer second type of guy who enjoys making theme focused armies rather than actually focus on the winning. My only requirement for them is that I want the rules to reflect how the army works in the fluff. This is why I enjoy the heck out of my Space Marines, Eldar, Imperial Guard and Orks. All of them works just the way the fluff says the normally operate. Also with those armies I always feel like the loss is due to lack of luck or just amateurish mistakes during the came. Unfortunately I don’t feel like this with CSM, which is sad since they are and will always be my favourite 40k army.

    • amaximus167

      Right there with you, especially on the CSM front.

  • markdawg

    A lot of FAAC players hate losing way more than they would like to admit but love putting themselves on a pedestal so they can point the WAAC finger of hate at other players. The next thing out of their mouth is they got beat by a WAAC player because they play fluff lists.

    While the guy across the table is playing single CAD Orks.

    • Yeah a lot of people use a lot of different excuses why they lose. I ran into that a lot. But the FAAC player you describe is just a sucky WAAC player who uses the fluffy excuse to make up for their crappy tactics. So they aren’t really a FAAC player at all.

    • SupPupPup

      That player kinda seems like a Hate at all costs player.

      • euansmith


    • TenDM

      It’s the old gamer thing of ‘everyone who is beats me has no life and plays too much, and everyone who loses to me is stupid and needs to learn to play’.

      I think there’s a lot more depth to it than simply how we play. So many WAAC players consider winning a casual game to be a waste of time because they’re not looking to win they’re looking to win after being pushed to the limit. Meanwhile plenty of casual/narrative players just want to use their opponents as NPCs. Even if they don’t care about winning a lot of them don’t want an opponent they want something to bounce the army they built or the story they wrote off.

      It’s hard to picture a casual/narrative player as the bad guy, but if I walk into my FLGS and say ‘ok, we’re playing my way’ it doesn’t really matter if my way is WAAC or pure narrative because either way I’m putting my enjoyment over everyone else’s.

      It’s not about how you play it’s about why you play that way and what you want from your opponent.

  • euansmith
  • Davis Centis

    That dress is obviously blue and black 😛

    I’d say I fall squarely on #3, I’m a Strategic Player. My favourite thing to do is to have two nearly-equal armies go at it in an interesting battlefield and see who comes out on top. I love draws, because that means that everything ended up even, and you can clearly see where just a little more effort one way or another would help.

    For anyone that wants a strategic game, please try out my mission, found here!

    It’s an incredible mission that has a lot of natural balances.

    • I like it! Sounds interesting. I’ll print it out and try it next week.

      • Davis Centis

        Just remember to read my other responses in that thread. Some play-testing allowed me to make a few important adjustments. Final adjustments have yet to be playtested, but I’m sure will be fun and functional.

        • Oh, thanks for mentioning that. I hadn’t scrolled down.

    • euansmith

      I like the sort of prisoners’ dilemma feel to the Special Circumstances, with the “effect lasts for the entire game”. Nice work there.

  • Damistar

    I am solidly a 4, I just like to play with the models. I think I’ve always been a FAAC player, going back to my experiences running RPGs. In those games it’s vitally important everyone has fun and I think that attitude carried over to war gaming with me. I’ve lost games by reminding my opponent of some rules point just so he would not feel bad later. Thanks for giving me a title Pimpcron!

    • Me too for the most part. How else can I explain frequently taking Flayed Ones before their boost in the recent codex? Or having a full Warp talon squad? I even have a unit of Wyches from dark Eldar (gasp!).

      • Damistar

        Me too, Wyches are just cool.

      • amaximus167

        Looks at all my WE zerks that cannot assault out of a rhino even thought they are assault ‘specialists.’

        Yep, right there with you!

    • amaximus167

      I have also discussed rules with other players that would benefit them and not me, right before they made a grave mistake. It is a good way to prep good opponents. I don’t have fun stomping people in a game. There are a few people I have wanted to stomp outside the game though…

  • SupPupPup

    fun at all costs!

  • Victor Hartmann

    Wow, I’ve had totally the wrong attitude. My goal has been “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the Eldar and Tau”

    Side note, would Conan the Barbarian be White Scars or something else?

    • SupPupPup

      Conan would be squats

    • euansmith

      Conan gets the USRs: Pantherlike Grace and Steely Thews. He also grants ATSKTSOS (And They Shall Know The Secret of Steel) to any squad he joins.

      • Commissar Molotov

        Hatred: Wizards

  • WellSpokenMan

    I’m a 3. I want to win, but I don’t want to crush someone. I like the people I play with. When I’m losing I try to focus and giving my opponent a challenge and try extra hard to be a good sport. When I’m winning I try to be sympathetic and generous (would you like to take that back?) These social exercises are, in my opinion, a far more important part of gaming than any type of mental exercise regarding tactics or strategy.

    • Well you apparently named your profile well. That was really well spoken. This social aspect is exactly why i think games like this are great for children. Empathy, humility, etc.

  • Nyyppä

    3, all the way.

  • Commissar Molotov

    I don’t mind losing, but I’d at least like to participate somewhat in the game. Shooting me off the table in the first turn or coming after me with LoW choices that I can’t really touch with my troops make me quickly realize I’d rather be drinking alone in the dark or doing my taxes.

    • You need better people to play with, it sounds. Luckily my gaming group isn’t like that I’d throw a hissy fit.

      • Commissar Molotov

        I had a great FLGS, but I’ve moved to a dark and scary place where I can’t be too choosy about my opponents!

    • ZeeLobby

      It was just nice when this didn’t happen as often even with the same crowd. GW could do a lot to mitigate this happening.

    • Drpx

      Alternate activation is a wonderful thing, wish GW would pick it up, but they’d probably mess it up and give the Space Marines/Eldar/Tau special rules that let their whole army go at the same time anyway.

  • Lord Elpus

    Play for fun all the way! As an Ork player, we never lose regardless of who we play against…

    • amaximus167

      Same as a World Eater player. My god doesn’t care if it is my skull or yours, as long as it is skulls!

      • Lord Elpus

        I knew there was a reason why I have a Kharn warband!!

        • amaximus167

          Hahahaha, right?

    • euansmith

      “You blew up my Battlewagon! Hahahahahahahahahah! Again! Again!”

      I still think that Orkz shouldn’t give up victory points for destroyed vehicles and dead Boyz. Only Elites and HQ choices should matter 😉

  • MechBattler

    Ork Stormboyz and Shokk Attack Guns! Watch crash landings, orks catching on fire and, and other randomized shenanigans as you laugh your way through the game the whole time!

    • Shokk attack gun is one of my favs. Always good for a laugh. please who care too much about winning should play orks to break them of that.

      • MechBattler

        I was playing my Necrons against another Ork player one day. He turned his Shokk Attack Gun on one of my Ghost Arks. I was like “You know it would be totally awesome if you rolled double 6’s for that.” BAM. He gets box cars for the Vortex. I was so excited to see a SAG roll hot that I didn’t even care that I was on the wrong end of it. After that I was like “YES. Get another 6! Do it again!” KABAM. He gets the second 6 for the Devastating Hit. My Ghost Ark went POOF! but I was happy to see a Shokk Attack Gun at full power. Boy that was one weird and wild game.

        • That’s the way we should all play! Happy when fun stuff happens no matter who wins!

    • CthulhuDawg

      I still field 6 looted wagons because DON’T PRESS DAT! is one of my favorite rules of always.

  • vyrago

    It only takes a few games against the guy that says things like “learn your codex, dude” or “this is not even my tournament list!” to get the camera out for some sexy ebay shots of your army.

    • This made me laugh. But don’t sell your army; boycott sir douchington. There is one guy in my group I refuse to play against for crap like that, and he knows, everyone knows.

      • Nyyppä

        That’s like saying “boycot 80+ % of the government”. These people are numerous enough to define what the game is like for the rest even when they are not playing. 😀

        • Damistar

          Really? I have heard horror stories of the terrible WAACmonsters but haven’t played one yet. I must just be lucky.

          • Commissar Molotov

            They’re out there, unfortunately.

          • Nyyppä


        • It might be 80% in your area but I’m lucky to have a great group of people. In my experience of gaming while traveling, at least 75% of the people I’ve ever played against (in multiple states) were just fine to play with. But it does change by region, so I believe you.

          • Also depends on your store.

            Stores often attract like-minded people. We have a tournament store that is mostly competitive guys that would curb stomp narrative or casual lists because they are driven by competition.

            We have a store that is mostly casual as well.

            It depends on what you are after I find.

          • Nyyppä

            Those 80% are not bad people. They just do not play the game like we do.

      • amaximus167

        How is this guy still in the group? We had a guy like that in a group once. He didn’t last very long before finding a new group.

        • Actually, it’s funny you say that. He used to be a regular, but since nobody ever wanted to play him, he kind of stopped coming around. He shows up sometimes, but has mostly moved onto other games now but still plays 40k. He’s still part of the periphery of our group.

  • I am also a #3. Strategic, give me an even playing field or a scenario where the forces are not even but the disadvantaged side has legit win conditions.

    I also don’t mind removing the harder elements from my list for a more narrative game.

    I don’t like playing against min/max lists simply because it removes a lot of the game by only getting to use the 10% or so that is worth taking in a min/max environment which kills me.

    • Nyyppä

      This….so much this.

  • SilentPony

    Rule I play by is would I feel bad if my opponent pulled the same shenanigans I just pulled.

    The golden rule I guess, but that’s so cliche.

    • Nyyppä

      You need some level of empathy to work with that. It does the job if you have it, there is no doubt about it. My experience, which might not be something carrying it’s own weight as a generalization, is that many if not most of the people who abuse the rules are people who have experienced very little…let’s say uplifted self worth during their youth and have not gotten past it. That kind of people generally boost their self esteem by roflstomping people and then claim that the opponent just has to learn to play etc.

  • surfpenguin

    I’m utterly a 5+ guy: Games are like the action scenes in movies: They don’t mean squat unless you know the story that cause the two sides to fight in the first place. Round after round of ‘line ’em up and slam ’em into each other’ just leave me cokd…

  • ZeeLobby

    For me it just involved playing different systems, haha.

  • CthulhuDawg

    The last several years has seen all of my games played at the 3000pt or higher tier using Apocalypse rules. I don’t get as many in as I used to, probably because most people don’t want to play that long. I find it to be the most fun, because you KNOW things are going to go sideways and there is room to bring all the fun units, hardcore min/max list, fluffy formations and Super heavies. My favorite game was 5kpts per side, Orks v. Guard, it took 7 turns, 9 hours to play and we tied. It’s the most fun I’ve had with 40k.

    • I mostly play massive games too, it makes losses so much less frustrating and you have all your favorite units on the field so you aren’t heartbroken if you lose one.

      That said I tend to still play standard missions and maelstrom because I don’t have the apoc book

  • Great post. Pimpcron is officially awarded 3 get out of jail free cards for future rambling, incoherent articles 😉

    • Hahahaha. I don’t apologize for my ramblings, but at least now I can use those 3 passes. Goodbye coherent articles, hello stupidity!

      • I kid, of course, it’s nice that there’s fluff play centered articles going up, sadly instead of celebrating it seems like people still mostly complain 😡

        • Oh, no problem I thought it was funny. 🙂

  • Peter Utecht

    Tried fluffy Black Templars last month, got my butt kicked by a Typhoon, Fellblade, 2x Mortis Contemptos and a sicaran…
    Plot twist: still had a ton of fun! ^^

  • jeff white

    excellent post. really enjoyed the post this time. how about an article on the educational value of 40k and miniatures wargaming generally, for both young and old…

  • Drpx

    How to be a VAAC (victim at all costs) player.

    1) Lose a game
    2) Say, “that was a fluff list anyway.”
    3) Call your opponent a puppy-kicking, noob bashing WAAC who’s “what’s wrong with the game,” loudly and publicly.

    Bonus victim points if they’re using what’s considered a “top tier” faction and you’re using a bottom one. In which case, inform your opponent that the loss/win didn’t count because the developer favors his faction and he should be ashamed of his choice while you deserve a medal for yours.

    • Commissar Molotov

      That was sub-par trolling. I expect better on BOLS than this.

  • Andrew Thomas

    Where would someone who likes to play ridiculous armies, with dodgy rules/win-cons, fit in this spectrum?

    • Chad Underdonk

      I believe we are referred to as Trolls (at least that’s what they call me).

      We are playing against our own self imposed limitations.

      If we lose it is because we are having a “fun” game playing something ridiculous. It was a foregone conclusion we would lose, so our opponent deserves a golf-clap.

      If we win it is something amazing, something that shouldn’t happen. We pulled off the ridiculous win and our opponent should be doubly “shamed” because they couldn’t even conquer this POS idea.

      At least, that’s how they broke down my idea of fun into manageable chunks to me 😛

  • Ronin

    I think it’s easier to simplify groups of people based on this:

    1) Competitive: Play to win any means necessary with no boundaries
    2) Casual: Try to win, but has boundaries. Will take models they like, and would prefer a close to even game with their opponent
    3) Narrative: Don’t really care about winning as much as just telling a story and taking models they love

    I tend to float around 2, but if I “GM” for a campaign I’m definitely 3 lol. I think the trick is to just play with people of similar mindsets and don’t worry so much about trying to convert them to your ways. As video gamers say in terms of single and multiplayer “Some play for story, others play for glory”.