40K: Imperial Assassins Are Trouble

Imperial Assassins open up a can of worms with 8th Edition. Here’s what you need to know:

Let’s start off with a confession – I love Imperial Assassins. I’ve thought they were awesome models since they were first introduced back in Rogue Trader and totally lost it when the first Assassin mini-codex came out back in 1999.

I’m telling you all this so you understand I’m writing this from a position of love. I think Assassins are awesome and want them to be a cool flavorful part of the game.

They are Currently a Big Problem

Imperial Assassins are currently sitting right on the fault lines of 8th’s rules and open up a lot of cracks in the game that are exploitable, but easily fixed. Let’s hit a few of these:

Assassins are Dirt Cheap

Take a look at how much Assassins cost and note that this includes wargear.  Oddly the better ones are cheaper.

Assassins are Spammable

In previous editions, Assassins were always a 0-1 choice, or you could take 1 of each in a Kill-team. This was meant to represent the solitary nature of thier assignments, or the dispatching of a single multi-temple killteam for the most dire of threats. But no more. In 8th, you can take as many as you want if you have the points.  We’ll return to this later.

Assassins are Useful (mostly)

There are really 2 Assassins of note. The Eversor is your general get in your grill really fast murder machine. He’s going to get his points back and it’s hard to stop him before he strikes. Even after he dies, he blows up, gifting you a few mortal wounds at a goodbye kiss.

The 2nd assassin of note is the Culexus. It’s this rule that you need to be aware of: Etherium.

It’s pretty nasty, with most enemies only hitting the Culexus on a 6. Again, keep that under your hat for now, we’ll return to it.

Assassins are Characters

Yup, every single one of them, meaning they have character protections against shooting unless they are the closest unit.

See the Problem?

Imagine a list something like this:

10 Imperial Assassins appear near the enemy army. 5 Culexus up front in an arc, and a knot of 5 Eversors moving up behind them.

You can only target random individual Culexus as they are the closest models to the enemy army and you only hit them on 6s. Either that turn or the next all the Eversors charge out and inflict carnage.  Due to fielding a large knot of character models, you have taken control of the the shooting phase out of the hands of the opposing player and the Assassin player now controls it.  You fill the rest of your army with traditional units that hide, or reserve and deal with mission objectives mid to late game after the Assassin bomb inflicts it’s carnage.

It’s unfluffy, frustrating as heck to face, and takes advantage of the ability of some armies to field large numbers of effective and cheap characters (and character rules) – probably unintended by the Design Studio.

Solutions

Assassins need to go back to 0-1 per Assassin.  But the underlying issue still remains, there are some nasty nasty hidden combos some armies can do with massed cheap characters.  That the tactic is effective or legal isn’t the issue. It’s that it’s horribly frustrating and un-fun – exactly the kind of thing we wanted to leave behind us with 7th edition’s passing. It’s just the type of exploit that makes people want to not play.

It needs addressing.

~What would you do if you were sitting in the designer’s chair?

  • Wampasaurus

    Each one of the Assassins is an Elite choice. Who exactly takes any detachment with 10 Elites choices because it would require that many as they are all single model units

    • Karru

      Well, Guard can take 6 Elites for every 30pts they pay. Vanguard Detachment with a Company Commander isn’t exactly that pricey.

    • Someone

      Not to mention you’d also need two HQs to run those detachments and they weren’t 0-1/unique in either sixth or seventh edition, another failure by Larry ‘I dun researched it’ Vela……

      • Brettila

        Vanguard is an HQ (Imperium is spoiled for cheap choices) and 3 more elites; plus a CP.

        • J Mad

          3-6 elites 😉

    • Harthelion

      You can take also the auxiliary support detachment, with that kind of list you don’t need command points XD

    • J Mad

      I do sometimes with DE, Trueborns are better in every way to Kabals and they only cost like 15pts more per squad, then i have Incubi, Bloodbrides (Wyches elite slot) and Mandrakes.

      There been games that i took 6 units of Trueborn, 2 Incubi and 2 Bloodbrides. This is 10 Elite slots.

      Its strong but not OP at all and is fun.

  • Daniel Sims

    “It’s unfluffy, frustrating as heck to face, and takes advantage of the ability of some armies to field large numbers of effective and cheap characters (and character rules) – probably unintended by the Design Studio.”

    So we’ll be seeing it everywhere.

    • tylran

      If you wanna burn 250€ on ten models that might not be usable after their codex comes out, then sure. I won’t be all that worried about the chances of that.

      • Mike X (Official)

        Never underestimate WAAC players. They’re also bandwagon/flavor-of-the-month people.

      • Drpx

        L2eBay noob

    • Parthis

      No; you’ll be seeing it at tournaments with other WAAC players, in amongst the StormRaven and Girlyman spam, the Tau Drone spam or the Razorwing lists.

      This is, again, a non issue. Let the WAAC players grind their wallets to beat other WAAC players.

      The rest of us will play our games and have fun.

      Once again we have a BoLS article over hyping a problem to generate Ad rev.

      • Crevab

        Oh, WAAC means “lists I don’t like”?

        • Parthis

          No, and you know that.

          4/10, mostly for getting the words in the right order.

          • Crevab

            Nope. There’s nothing even close to bending the rules here. You just insult people who play differently than you

          • Parthis

            If you can point out where in the comment you’re replying to that I stated there was any rules abuse (or “bending”), at all, then i’ll take your words to heart.

            But you won’t find it, as it’s not there. If WAAC players want to throw 5 Storm Ravens, or 10 Assassins on the table, fine. My point remains; these “issues” don’t impact the majority of players, and BoLS is hyping the “problem”

            As an aside, you’re the one taking WAAC in a negative context and assuming insult. Odd, that.

          • Crevab

            Well congratulations, now you know that part of WAAC is twisting ambiguous rules to your advantage. The label you’re looking for is Powergaming

          • Parthis

            “Hah, so that term now means something other than what you said!?”

            Nope.

            “Yeah, but that thing you never claimed is true isn’t true!”

            Correct.

            “Yeah, well, now that phrase you used is wrong and you should use another one!”

            OK.

            Nice talking to you.

          • Crevab

            Relax, you didn’t know that WAAC is a term for ~cheaters. Now you do. Don’t need to get defensive about it

          • Lion El’ Jonson

            He’s right. WAAC means just that, someone who will do everything to win, which goes well beyond just making op lists.

            Powergamer is more appropriate, as they aren’t necessarily cheaters, but guys who make op/broken lists.

            Either way both can be be very unfun to play against, especially the former.

          • ZeeLobby

            This. There is a difference.

          • Xodis

            WAAC may include cheaters, but it isn’t specifically meant to label cheaters alone. Powergamers are WAAC gamers that dont cheat, while WAAC gamers are Powergamers that might.
            WAAC also includes the Band-wagoners, the Pay to Win crowd, and pretty much all the other negative stereotypes. So arguing definition is a silly thing indeed.

          • ZeeLobby

            Why? I mean clearly WAAC just covers a much larger range. But there have always been definitions that fall within sets of other hierarchical definitions.

            A Powergamer is not a WAACer.

            A WAACer is a powergamer.

            There is still a distinction between the two.

          • Xodis

            A Powergamer is still a WAACer, the win despite the cost to their wallet, their opponents fun, etc… Powergamers can use a known broken rule to win big simply because the rules allow it.

          • ZeeLobby

            You seem to be ignoring the “all” part of WAAC. Clearly they are not identical. Powergamer != will cheat to win. Therefore they’re not willing to pay all costs to win. I mean it’s not that hard, this is like logic 101.

          • Xodis

            Im not ignoring it, its just that not all WAACers choose cheating because then you dont win. If you cheat and get caught then you lose, so WAAC doesnt necessarily mean cheating, although cheaters are obviously WAAC players, so too are Powergamers that do everything but cheat (since they wont win). Its simple logic 101.

          • ZeeLobby

            Winning at all costs means doing whatever possible to win. Losing is the COST!

            I’d also argue that powergamers don’t do “everything but cheat”. LoL. How you get that from the term “power gamer” is beyond me. I knew Ork players in 6th/7th who were power gamers who didn’t buy Eldar, lol.

          • Xodis

            And if cheating costs you the win, its not worth cheating. So no, not all WAAC players cheat, sometimes they cant cheat even though they might want to.

          • ZeeLobby

            And other times they do. The point is they’re willing to do it if they think it’ll get them the victory.

          • Xodis

            Possibly, but that doesnt mean all WAAC players are cheaters, because someone who WOULD cheat to win, might not be able to because they are not prepared to cheat or not good at cheating.

          • ZeeLobby

            I would still consider someone who is wiling to cheat, a cheater. It’s only a matter of time until they find a way to do it that doesn’t cost them the win. If you play someone who only rolls when your back is turned and picks up the dice before you look, with the intent of fixing his dice, and then rolls normally when your watching, that doesn’t suddenly make him a non-cheater.

          • Xodis

            I call them a cheater too, and not a WAACer

          • ZeeLobby

            Why? Aren’t they doing whatever possible to win? Regardless of cost? I mean they’re easily picking the most costly choice in an attempt to win. Isn’t that by definition a WAAC. If they’re willing to cheat, they’re willing to do anything.

          • Xodis

            No, they are just cheating. They could be doing a LOT more to win like buying a better army, using units that dont suck, etc…

          • ZeeLobby

            So to be a WAAC you have to do everything? Then a power gamer isn’t a WAAC player right? By your own definition. They’re just a power gamer.

          • Xodis

            Everything you can, not everyone CAN cheat, not everyone CAN write good lists, not everyone CAN buy new models.

          • ZeeLobby

            OK, so now we’re redefining again. It’s really “Win at all costs you can afford to pay, write and cheat”

            So a power gamer who choses not to cheat isn’t a WAAC. Again.

          • Xodis

            No redefining necessary, its win at all costs to the player. Otherwise what you saying is that someone who breaks in and steals better models they cant afford are the only WAAC players.

          • ZeeLobby

            So basically WAAC just doesn’t exist. By your own admission. I’m fine with that.

          • Xodis

            No im saying it does exist and most players fit it in one way or the other, youre the one who says WAAC players must do everything within their power which should also include theft to win.

          • ZeeLobby

            Because it’s in the freaking words. Win at ALL costs. ALL, EVERYTHING, TOTAL, etc. Clearly by this definition no one is a WAAC player. Everyone could attempt to steal models to make a winning list, but no one does it, hence they won’t do EVERYTHING, ALL, etc. to win.

          • Xodis

            You are the one in this conversation that keep depending on that word ALL. Not me, Im saying by YOUR definition only thieves and Cheats are really WAAC players, Im saying that WAAC doesn’t necessarily mean absurdity like that.

          • Xodis

            So what you are saying is that there may be 1 or 2 WAAC players in the world, but no one is really a WAAC player?

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean you can’t have both. Either their WAAC and do everything in their power to win, as the English language implies. Or you stick to your loose definition that if you do some things to win, you’re a WAAC player (oh, except cheating, then you’re a cheater).

            Like I’ve said previously. I think it’s a dumb term. So I’m fine with either definition.

          • Xodis

            Yes you can, because a player that is willing to “win at all costs” doesnt necessarily have to pay the “all” cost. Making an undefeatable list counts because the cost is your opponents fun, no cheating required.
            So while technically there are only a handful of literal WAAC gamers, the term is often used and accepted in use to describe Powergamers, Play to Win, Net-Listers, Bandwagon jumpers, cheaters, etc… who care more about winning than anything including playing the game.

          • ZeeLobby

            So a power gamer willing to win at some costs is different than a cheater willing to win at a cost? A power gamer is a WAAC player, but a cheater is not? So WAAC is really someone whose willing to pay some costs to win, but not necessarily all, and not just one single cost?

            (this is your argument here)

          • Xodis

            No, Ive said time and time again a Cheater IS a WAAC gamer, we normally just dont call them that. Mainly because not all WAAC players are bad (see my tournament player analogy). Those who get upset at being called a WAAC player usually see themselves as not WAAC players or even narrative/casual players.

          • ZeeLobby

            People get mad because no one is attempting to win at ALL costs. Again, you seem to be completely ignoring the third word in that abbreviation. I have never, ever, wanted to win at ALL costs. I may have wanted to pay some (like buying new units), but I’ve never wanted to do ALL that I could.

            People are mad because you’re falsely labeling them.

          • Xodis

            Its not really a false label. If someone continues to bring an army that is ruins the fun of others, that player wants to win regardless of his opponents enjoyment of a game….its pretty accurate.

          • ZeeLobby

            OK. But that doesn’t mean he wants to win at ALL costs. He’s willing to alienate players and be unfriendly, but he’s not going to poison your drink so you can’t make the next round, lol.

            I mean really what you’re describing is a term that is used for over-generalization. So now a “WAAC” player who just writes strong lists is being dumped into the same pool as someone with fixed dice. I think we get enough of this in politics these days (“Muslims”, “Mexicans”, etc.) to not have to bring such a term into the gaming community, at least the way you have defined it. I mean I totally get why people get offended when all they’ve done is written a competitive list.

          • Xodis

            Really? Because he is winning at the cost of the one thing a game brings: Enjoyment. Literally there is no reason other than that as it is by definition entertainment.

            While someone with a competitive list isn’t necessarily a WAAC player (your gaming group for example) that same person with that same list would be in another group (a narrative group). So its not a problem with the labeling, because if that person continues to play (although it probably wont be long) that list with the narrative group, the label fits perfectly.

          • ZeeLobby

            How is winning not enjoyable for the winner? I mean he might really enjoy it. Enough so that he doesn’t care about the cost.

            And you’re right. He’s a Win At A Cost gamer. The cost of being kicked out of the group. He’s still not flattening your tires so you can’t make it to the store (criminal cost).

          • Xodis

            In a 2 player game the other player matters, those that dont take them into consideration would be a WAAC gamer. As I said and specifically called out previously, players that frequent Tournaments sometimes enjoy that label as that is the goal of the tournaments they play in….doesnt make the label less true though.
            Yes we have established that there are very few real WAAC gamers by your quite literal and extreme definition of all…even though when referencing games people probably never considered that.

          • ZeeLobby

            You mean the definition described by the words that make up the term? Woe is me for thinking that, lol.

            And you’re right, that guy is totally a WATCOYOE.

            Just FYI, I’ve taken fun lists that are super fluffy to tournaments before, and beaten opponents with far superior lists occasionally, and they didn’t “enjoy” the game because of that. Am I now a WAAC player as well?

          • Xodis

            Im not sure, ask them. Taking the definition outside of its context is your problem, not the definition itself.
            When someone says that their world is over, do they mean the literal world we are all on, or just their little bubble….context man. Learn it.

          • ZeeLobby

            LOL. So now ALL doesn’t mean all, but some. OK mad sorcerer!

          • Xodis

            No it does, but again, context is a think. All in this context could mean all that a game can offer, hence enjoyment. Ive stated that like 4 times now, try to keep up.

          • ZeeLobby

            I dunno man, your bending of logic makes it tough. You just bring more and more stretches as we go to somehow make it logical, but it’s just not.

          • Xodis

            Not really, again we can start over and I can explain more slowly if you need. I havent needed to stretch a thing, Im just explaining what you dont get apparently.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well first you redefined “all” (no mean feat there). Then you redefined WAAC as someone who doesn’t want both sides to have fun. Then you introduced context as a cure-all. Now you’re implying that I need slow instructions. I mean it seems like a lot of stretching. I mean I would be hard pressed to make that many bends in one chain.

          • Xodis

            Wrong on many levels, you werent paying attention class, Ill go over it again.

            -I put the word All in the context it should have been. No redefinition needed.

            -WAAC covers a lot of things, someone who doesnt care if their opponent has fun can be considered a WAAC player, but its not exclusive to that.

            -Context is what language is based on, without it you have confused people such as yourself you think someone needs to rob models and commit grand larceny in order to be a WAAC player which is too ridiculous really.

            -Well I did have to break it down like so.

            Its not stretching to try and explain the same thing in different ways to get someone to understand. Chains are actually very bendy, that are usually wrapped in circles for storage.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. Good to know. So if we ever argue again about anything I can just say context and then don’t need to defend my statements. I guess you did educate me there. Makes me wonder how many times you’ve dived down that hole to prove a point. It must be well-worn by now.

          • Xodis

            No, you can do what I did and defend the statement by also explaining the context. There is a difference.
            Never had to explain context before, this is a first.

          • Xodis
          • ZeeLobby

            I mean I’m just trying to get you to write down a definition of WAAC that makes sense, and doesn’t contradict things you’ve said previously.

          • Xodis

            Nothing I’ve said is contradictory. I took your literal definition to its logical end to point that it is flawed. If you want to point out something that seems contradictory I will happily explain it for you.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean anyone who can turn ALL into some or one is a magician, and i don’t dabble in real magic, so it’d probably be above me.

          • Xodis

            Wouldn’t be the first time exaggerations are used in the English language. It also helps that this is not a defined term by an actual language but an evolving term used by a niche group.

            Dont forget Irregardless is a word even though its definition is the same as regardless, but the added Ir is suppose to swap the meaning. Language is funny that way.

          • Xodis

            Dont forget also that the goal of a game is ultimately enjoyment despite winning or losing, so a WAAC gamer who risks enjoyment from both parties or even a single party could technically be seen as risking all to play his way. Again, its all perspective.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean if winning brings him joy. I don’t see how it’s a risk for him. The “goal” of a game is dependent on the player. “Game of Thrones” is a perfect example, so you’re right, perspective is important, but there is no mandatory requirement that both sides have fun for one side to consider it a success.

          • Xodis

            Because its a 2 player game, so he is risking the joy of his opponent in his effort to win. That might not mean much to him…but thats why he is a WAAC gamer.

          • ZeeLobby

            So it’s really not Win At All Costs. It’s really Win At The Cost Of Your Oppoents Enjoyment. WATCOYOE. You should coin that.

          • Xodis

            No because enjoyment is ALL a game can provide, so technically its ALL that is available.

          • ZeeLobby

            And it was enjoyable, for the person who played competitively. It’s only when it’s not enjoyable for one of the players that “WAAC” should be involved? In that case I think WATCOYOE is a pretty solid term. Definitely much more accurate.

          • Xodis

            Are you sure? Someone that wants competition doesnt normally find it against lists that cant compete.So maybe they wanted to win so bad they also sacrificed their OWN enjoyment.

          • ZeeLobby

            LoL. Now you’re just stretching. I’m sure you’ve seen players like this before. Did they ever look sad, or upset, while they were crushing under-powered lists? C’mon now, your just really stretching.

            I personally like a stiff competition, but I’ve seen plenty of people who like to crush fluff bunnies and enjoy doing it. So your assumption is kind of false.

          • Xodis

            Yeah, me. I stopped a game because it wasnt fun to just roll dice and see my buddy pull models off the table knowing he couldnt do anything about it.

          • ZeeLobby

            I wasn’t asking if you’ve done it. It was your “pretending” that someone crushing a lesser opponent is always sacrificing their enjoyment. They don’t have to be, they might really enjoy it. I’ve seen several players who have. In fact I’d argue that your definition of “WAAC” would probably cease to exist if you hadn’t ever seen it.

          • Xodis

            If they get enjoyment out of competition like you said than yes. Otherwise that person doesnt just get enjoyment out of competition. Simple logic like you stated.

          • ZeeLobby

            OK. So going back to where we started, now that we’re in agreement, WATCOYOE is probably a much better term for such a person. Clearly those people actually do exist. It doesn’t cost their enjoyment at all, and if they don’t care about their opponents, that’s not costing them anything either.

          • Xodis

            Sure, but I dont think itll be as catchy as you think. Most people stick to something simple like WoW, 40K, WAAC. I mean we still call it 40K and its actually 41K now isnt it?

          • Xodis

            Game of Thrones isnt a game though, so that anology is completely wrong. Thats a snide remark about the series matters (in a fantasy world) of politics. Its like when we talk about political games but people are still starving on the streets, its not a real game. 40K is.

          • ZeeLobby

            It’s all dependent on perspective. Many politicians see politics as a game. Doesn’t mean someone isn’t starving on the streets due to some policy. For those participating it’s entertainment/competition. I love that now we have a term like “real” game, lol.

          • Xodis

            I think you have watched too much House of Cards, very few politicians see politics as a game. A job sure, a duty maybe, but a game? No. They may use the word ironically, but they dont actually view it that way.

          • ZeeLobby

            A magician and a psychic! That’s impressive. No politician would ever admit that they viewed it that way. I mean ignoring the fact that it might result in them being bodily harmed, it would at least demolish their career instantly.

          • Xodis

            Keep reading and Ill continue to impress you. No human without a mental illness could possibly see destroying lives as a game, no magic or psychic powers needed.

          • ZeeLobby

            LOL, cause there has never been instances of mass genocide, or mad kings. And now you’re stepping down the rocky road of “mental illness”, something that has been struggled to be defined since it’s inception. You truly are a sorcerer.

          • Xodis

            So you think a few small exceptions prove or disprove anything? They are called exceptions for a reason.

            Its not a rocky road and most doctors will agree, that anyone that can find enjoyment to the point of seeing lives ruined or destroyed as a game, has something wrong with them.

          • ZeeLobby

            Just depends if it’s socially acceptable to be frank. I mean Genghis Khan had an extremely huge following of believers who loved pillaging. I mean unless you’re saying that they were all mentally ill. Doesn’t seem like an exception there…

          • Xodis

            Again, you need some context. Ghengis Khan and even Hitler didnt see themselves as destroying lives, they saw it as bettering the lives of their people. I also highly doubt they viewed their actions as a game like you tried to say either.

          • ZeeLobby

            Highly doubt, but we don’t really know do we? Khan participated in a lot of pretty vicious “sports” with his slaves as well.

            And you do realize “context” and “social acceptance” are two very close things right? I don’t think I’m arguing with you on that, your new “context” spin point. I mean heck, recently in Israel there were people with lawn chairs watching Palestine get bombarded and cheering. Context is always important. But I don’t think it somehow provide a definition of what is a game vs what isn’t in the mind of an individual.

          • Xodis

            Not at all. Context and social acceptance are completely different things. No, trying to link politics and games was your problem. It doesnt take a genius to look up intentionally harming others for enjoyment is a sign of mental illness, which you tried to say was normal in politics.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean it’s been present in politics in the past. OOO, are we about to go down the road of defining “normal”. LoL. I’m down, you’ll never end this rabbit hole of explanation. It started getting weird when you ran out of juice, and it’s honestly gotten boring for me.

          • Xodis

            I ran out of juice? Ive been simply repeating the same thing because you keep coming up with strange new attempts to get one over on me….and it hasnt worked yet.

            Normal can easily be defined as not having a mental illness. explaination over.

          • Xodis

            I love how the difference between a game and something being described as a game without actually being one needs to be discussed.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean source of enjoyment is subjective. You can’t just force it to be objective by thinking so…

          • Xodis

            No one said games were the only source of enjoyment.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right, so how could it not be considered a game by some? If it’s something they see as a past-time which brings them enjoyment, then for them it’s a game.

          • Xodis

            Because a game has a definition, odd since definitions are your thing that you need to be explained that.

            Whos reaching now? I enjoy watching bands play, at no time is it a game though.

          • ZeeLobby

            Because there’s no competition. That was a poor example of your point, try again.

          • Xodis

            Obviously you cant remember what you type yourself, so why am I surprised you missed the point. Competition doesnt need to be involved. I listed an activity that brings enjoyment that doesnt have competition and isnt a game. If I needed to bring an example of a game that doesnt have competition simply look at RPGs which are group story telling sessions. There are even forms of competition that are not games, like weight lifting.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean you’re actually competing vs the GM. Or in newer games you’re competing against the AI provided by the books. I mean the GM is attempting to make the game a challenge, and your purpose is to defeat the entities piloted by him. You can craft an imaginary opponent out of that, but it’s still the reality.

            And actually you’re right, I was wrong, and so were you. Oxford defines game as: “An activity that one engages in for amusement or fun.” So technically watching bands play could be defined as a game, assuming you’re participating in the crowd, as long as you’re having fun.

            SO if a politician is participating in something that brings them enjoyment, it could totally be a game for them.

          • Xodis

            Some RPGs you are competing, but D&D specifically says you are not (using D&D since its practically started the genre and is still number 1 and considered the standard of RPGs) along with others like FFG Star Wars. Its a group collaboration.There is also ways to bypass the situation without defeat. Many RPG sessions focus on combat (who doesnt love rolling dice) but there are plenty that eschew it almost completely.
            Only if you think watching others is “engaging” in. Since engage has multiple definitions for its mutliple uses.
            So now everything that everyone does is a game? Interesting theory.

          • Xodis

            “For those participating it’s entertainment/competition” Yes and entertainment comes FROM the competition, so using that power list against non powerlists provide neither.

          • ZeeLobby

            Why? I’ve played power lists against fluff lists that have given me a run for my money. Especially in the hands of a skilled player. Or are we generalizing again as fact?

          • Xodis

            So a fluff list cant be a power list? I believe I already stated that it can.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean there was nothing “powerful” about it. I was just outplayed. But wait, that can’t happen right?

          • Xodis

            Sure it can, strategy is also a part of this game. Just trying to throw out everything to make a point now? It was obviously powerful enough to compete with the “Power list” so I think it did have some powerful aspects about it…or are you saying that any list can win regardless of power?

          • ZeeLobby

            “so using that power list against non powerlists provide neither.”

            So your own words are false. That was my point, and I’m glad you agree.

          • Xodis

            Should have a may since im not the player I cant say for certain, but try to grab a win where you can.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. I play narratively a lot, so I don’t mind. I’ve also been labeled a WAAC player at a tournament because I brought a strong list, which is just silly. You’re operating under the assumption that the person I’m describing is me, but it’s definitely not. I just enjoy trying to educate the community on terms which are used to falsely label individuals in a derogatory way.

            I mean no need to “grab a win”, just trying to help you out here. But it takes a man to admit that something they posted was false, so I appreciate that. Now we can close this thread off and continue on the others! 😀

          • Xodis

            Thats weird that you would get labeled that at a Tournament, unless it was some narrative tournament or something.

            Im under no impression at all, leave the psychic stuff to me, I was mostly using hypotheticals.

            Youre educating the community falsly though on your own definition, not even an accepted definition as it seems to get used more my way than yours.

            So when are you going to man up and post what you said is false and ridiculous?

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean my definition is just based on the words of the acronym. It’s the easiest to come to. It requires no massaging or “context” etc.

            I mean I can’t lie for your sake. Then we’d all just be mindless haters. Duh! 😀

          • Xodis

            Based on the words outside of context, like ive said 4 times, is the problem. You have to take context in to understand like the examples I gave you.

          • GreyPanthers
          • ZeeLobby

            I mean it’s a distinction.

          • lunahula .

            Powergaming is a religion of peace and WAAC has nothing to dowith them? 😀

          • Lion El’ Jonson

            To me there has always been a fairly clear distinction. Win at all costs could very well be someone who doesn’t use broken lists, but uses underhanded tactics like changing dice numbers when someone isn’t looking or moving units a bit further then allowed when he can without being caught ect ect.

            A Powergamer however is someone that just builds demolition lists, which in tournaments I can understand, but its not on in casual games (Not that I’ll turn down a game against one mind you). However they might not cheat at all.

            The two do tend to go hand in hand though, but there is a distinction imo..

          • Xodis

            I’ve always seen WAAC as that Overarching label that covers them all. Like European covers all the different countries in Europe or American covers the different individual states. Like I said below, most cheaters get called cheaters, most Powergamers get called Powergamers, Net listers, or some variation of that, but calling either a WAAC gamer is not incorrect.

          • Lion El’ Jonson

            They usually do go hand in hand.. For me WAAC is someone who does everything in his power to win-basically a cheater for all intents and purposes.

            A Powergamer to me is just someone who brings stupidly powerful lists but might otherwise adhere to the rules thus not doing everything under the sun to win.

          • Xodis

            Cheaters are cheaters, and whilesome WAAC players may cheat, some may not, because cheating is too easy to get caught, so its a bad tactic to winning and is more likely to cost them a win than deliver one.

          • Lion El’ Jonson

            When you’re playing a game with few if any people its hard to cheat, but when you have observers/casual atmosphere, you can get distracted fairly easily. I did move a unit an extra 2 inches knowingly when I was younger to my shame when my opponent was pulled into a discussion.

            But anyway you can use both terms, as they do end up going together, But I still believe there is a distinction between someone who will do anything to win, and someone who just brings a roided up list to seal club.

          • Xodis

            I never said there wasnt a distinction, just like there is a distinction between any cheater and a non cheater, just that the OP didnt need to be “corrected”.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean that’s how most people I know see it. But apparently they’re equal for some.

          • Xodis

            Who is this most? Youre trying to take a level of authority by most to an undefined term.

            Did you know tanking was originally an undefined term and it became so because Tanks usually wore heavy armor….until we found out that Rogues could tank too. Doesnt make sense calling a Tank a Tank when it walking around in rags.

          • ZeeLobby

            Our gaming group. Highly competitive, go to a bunch of events every year, and I’ve never heard them label a strong player with strong list as a WAAC player, lol. Power gamer sure.

          • Xodis

            Probably because like you stated “highly competitive” someone who writes strong lists just fits in, so maybe all of you are WAAC players…you certainly would be if you left and arrived at a narrative play group.

          • ZeeLobby

            LoL. k

      • ZeeLobby

        For as much as this is claimed to be a “power gaming” issue, it’s crazy how many spammed scatbikes I saw at the local store playing regular games. If we’re now even more reliant on a pregame discussion to play a fun close game in 8th, PUG 40K is truly dead.

    • wibbling

      Only amongst really bad players desperate to exploit the rules.

      However, it’s easily countered. It just stakes imagination.

      • ZeeLobby

        Dream your victory!

      • georgelabour

        Is imagination some kind of vampire then?

        =^.^=

      • the_cosmic_serpent

        Weapons that auto-hit that happen to work both in your shooting phase and during over-watch?

    • OldHat

      Except it sounds pretty damn terrible, honestly. Not sure it is a legitimate concern at all.

    • Richard Mitchell

      The game has been out for a couple of months and already cracks are showing and the shine is fading. Not really a big deal, no system is 100% perfect.

      However, this is why you do not overhype something. Most of the most active and visible players in my community (Americans are very competitive) who play 40k do play these broken lists at the LGS, for casual and tournament play. And they are already chasing new players out because 8th was supposed to be the Second Coming and it is not.

      Since AoS was underestimated, it is actually in a better spot long term with its release than 40k 8th.

      • ZeeLobby

        That is both shocking and makes a lot of sense. Who knows, maybe AoS is the route to go.

  • Dan Brugman

    The simplest solution for this and any character spam lists really is to change the targeting restriction on characters to read as follows:

    “Models may only target character models in the shooting phase if they are the closest model to the attacking model, or the only closer models are also characters.”

    This would allow the defense characters are suppose to have to remain mostly intact while preventing those characters from creating some sort of idiotic conga line of screening characters.

    • Horus84cmd

      I have no problem if someone wants to conga line their characters to protect one. I’d be pretty confident that I shoot 90% of my army at the closest character 9/10 that characters toast.

  • Jasko

    Only a WAAC player would need an 0-1 cap to know that fielding 10 assassins doesn’t fly. Write a scenario for it, get your opponent involved, all good. But nobody I would respect would show up to a match and take 10 assassins out of his bag.

    • Crevab

      How about 2? 4? When does “WAAC” kick in for you?

      • Parthis

        Man, you have a major complex with “WAAC”, don’t you?

        I play a lot of Malifaux tournaments. I care about doing well; i’d consider myself a WAAC player in that context.

        It’s a term to describe a mindset, not a slur.

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean WAAC usually means bending rules, aka, cheating. It sounds like you’re more of a power gamer. Nothing wrong with a power gamer.

          • Xodis

            Its only been derogatory if you dont consider yourself a WAAC gamer. Some people (like tournament goers) relish the name because thats the point of a tournament is to win.

            WAAC has always included cheaters, rules benders, power gamers, net listers, etc, etc… Its why we still have labels like Powergamers and the like. When that kid was caught cheating with loaded dice in Florida?? No one called him a WAACer, every label used was Cheater, because thats what he did.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right, and I’d argue those are power gamers, not WAACers. Someone playing within the confines of the core rules isn’t attempting to “win at all costs”. Clearly they’re attempting to win with what is legally possible. a WAAC player is one willing to take it that one step further. And while yes, that kid cheated, I would guarantee that even when he wasn’t obviously cheating, he was doing everything possible to win regardless of consequence (WAAC).

            Clearly there was a cost associated with his actions, being labeled a cheater, but he was willing to take that risk to win. Someone spamming powerful units within the legal rules, there’s no real cost associated with that. I mean it’s the rules.

          • Xodis

            I’d still argue that calling it silver, chrome, or boltgun is just a minor shade of the same color too.

            Win at all Costs can be any number of costs: financial, reputation, your opponents enjoyment, etc… There are a lot of costs to factor.

          • ZeeLobby

            So really what you’re describing is a “win at a cost” player? Or “win at some costs” player? WASC?

          • Xodis

            No because you can’t win at all costs, if it costs you the win. So not all WAAC players cheat.

          • ZeeLobby

            But they would if they could. The intention is there.

          • Xodis

            They may, thats the thing about cheating, its a high cost/low reward system. It may be better to not cheat and throw someone off your cheating trail.

          • ZeeLobby

            OK. It’s still a completely different person than someone who writes strong lists, lol.

          • Xodis

            Not necessarily. WAAC used to mean someone who wrote a list that defied lore, then we started finding powerful lists that fit in the lore, then sometimes the lore changed to fit the power list.

            Its all perspective. Have a Powergamer show up to a narrative crowd and see if he isn’t labeled as a WAAC player. WAAC players generally imbalance the game when not playing other WAAC players, and thats really the only thing that can be said about all of them.

          • ZeeLobby

            How is lore even relevant in a competitive setting?

            If they’re not willing to cheat. THEY’RE NOT WILLING TO WIN AT ALL COSTS. It’s like a logical requirement of WAAC. Sure you can label them a WAAC all you want, doesn’t mean they are one.

          • Xodis

            Its not, but not all settings are competitive.

          • ZeeLobby

            OK.

        • In 40k land WAAC is a slur. It’s also incredibly subjective, but there are definitely people out there who deserve the term. Fear of running into a WAAC player and having your game night ruined has been a problem with the community for years.
          One of my favorite things about Infinity is that this isn’t an issue.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well, infinity has tight rules that aren’t easily bent to breaking also. 40K is basically a breeding ground for WAACers.

          • Another thing that helps Infinity is the back and forth between players. The game requires you to cooperate with your opponent for every order.

          • ZeeLobby

            True, it’s a very involved game. I enjoy not sitting there and just watching my opponent do things, but thinking how i’ll respond as well. Was really hoping 40K 8th might have broken into that realm.

          • I was hoping for that as well, but when they dug up the Necromunda rules I was pretty sure they weren’t going to change 40k up that much.

    • AX_472

      Most home players don’t need to concern themselves with this so it should really be the event/clubs responsibility to limit power gamers in my opinion.

  • 40KstillRulesTheTT

    I for one think 9 or less wound characters should be limited to 2 for 1000 point games, 4 for 1500 point games, and 6 for 2000 point games. No rulechange, just that. We are supposed to play armies, not bands of heroes (unless specific home made scenario of course)

    • Robert West

      Speaking of RAW cheese, can a cheap character “buy” a landraider? None of my data sheets say a unit can “buy” a transport and the limit on them in the FOC is by slots.

      • Bakvrad

        A land raider is heavy support for Marines, not a transport slot. But you can take a drop pod or a rhino, when taking a land raider 😉

    • Drew_Da_Destroya

      So, Dark Eldar Courts of the Archon are now “gentleman’s illegal”? Or running a Battalion means you’re not allowed to add a second detachment, since they all require HQs, most of which are characters with less than 9 wounds?

      • J Mad

        Your point is perfectly valid and i like it…. but DE courts are over costed to the extreme and no one would take that many at low point games 🙁

        • Drew_Da_Destroya

          That’s fair, but my main point is that there are a lot more characters than just HQs these days. Painboyz, Waaagh Banna Nobz, DE Beastmasters and Courts, they all fall into that category.

    • J Mad

      There are units and armies this wont work for.

      The real solution is if they are to strong and to spamable, raise the points a bit, 15-25 more points would make them questionable to spam.

  • TheCrimsonFist

    Wow that assassins codex came out in 1999… now I feel old…
    Agreed that there should be a 0-1 restriction on these guys though, if only to fit the fluff

    • ZeeLobby

      But GW wants you to buy 10! (I really wish GW was capable of making restrictive fixes, but I’m worried it’s just not in their genes anymore).

  • I still have my copy of that codex….yeah, I’m old.
    .
    I don’t play in tournaments, so I doubt I’ll ever see such a tactic. I would refuse to play against it if I did.

  • orionburn

    “- probably unintended by the Design Studio”

    If I had a dollar for every time I heard that statement…

    • ZeeLobby

      “Well 75% of the design studio play Space Marines, 2 guys have Eldar, and we make the interns play Xenos. But I’m pretty sure we have 8th balanced out.”

    • zeno666

      lol indeed 😉

  • benn grimm

    Opponent puts down 10 assassins, you put down 800 pts of titan. Both players wonder a) why are we playing such a strange points total game? b) whether a little conversation ahead of time could have avoided this? c) why are the other people laughing at us?

    • Horus84cmd

      #winstheinternetforaday

  • Horus84cmd

    “10 Imperial Assassins appear near the enemy army. 5 Culexus up front in an arc, and a knot of 5 Eversors moving up behind them.

    So you know your opponent has this lay out of assassins before the game…..you could of course use some tactics and set up a your army towards the back of your deployment zone and ideally towards the corner….you know stopping your opponent from setting up behind you…

    “You can only target random individual Culexus as they are the closest models to the enemy army and you only hit them on 6s.”

    Unless of course, you manage your own +1 to hit bubbles to make that 5+ or lower….

    • the_cosmic_serpent

      Or use weapons that auto-hit maybe? D-Scythe’s should do the trick.

      • Horus84cmd

        haha yes indeed they would.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Even Flamers and Heavy Flamers would work.

        This kind of list only works once or twice, before people adapt and ruin your day.

  • Mark Knight

    Well it’s already FAQed so only 1 model allowed by assassin house….

    • Necrontyr

      Where is this FAQ? I don’t see this on the gw one?

    • OldHat

      ….Not in any FAQs I see.

  • Spacefrisian

    Assuming the opponent doesnt move or has snipers or autohit weapons or appears from out of nowhere all these may happen. Snap that sounds like tactics.

  • SittingInACorner

    Assaians were never 0-1 lol. You could take as many assain deachments as you wanted.

    • TB0N3

      Hes talking about 5th edition and back.

      • ZeeLobby

        Don’t feel like it was that long ago, but man, maybe it was, haha.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          5th edition was 5 years ago, lol.

          • ZeeLobby

            Man, it seems like 10 years. Just so much crap shoved into 6th and 7th.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Compared to the editions prior to 6th and 7th, tons of crap was shoved into them. Every codex was update (save Sisters) and many new armies added. All in the span of 4 years. Any other 4 year time frame for the game since 3rd launched, that would be unheard of, really.

  • zeno666

    Will this sell more Assassin-models?
    Oh yeah, it will for sure. So the rule stays.

  • OldHat

    The list sounds like it would crumble to 150 Boyz, 100 Genestealers, or 100 Brimstones. And what can it do against Stormraven spam?

    Sounds like much ado about nothing.

  • Marc Berry

    Along with the the new vehicle rules this is another design flaw

  • Michael Garrett

    terrible people = no fun

  • Munn

    You’ll never see this list for 2 reasons. 1, it completely falls apart the moment anyone has a heavy flamer and 2, Flyers exist.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    $350 for 10 infantry models makes this a Tournament problem.

    • Since when do tournament players care for the money? I thought they only care for the imba units, no matter the (real world) costs?

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        My point exactly. Us filthy casuals would never gamble with a list like this at those prices.

        • Ah, I see. The bad thing is though that those guys do not only attend tournaments, but also casual games.

  • I start doubting the Design-Studio had “intentions” with 8th at all when it comes to balance. Imo it’s all out of the window even worse than ever before.

  • Malisteen

    character protection should be based on nearer non-character units, not just nearer units generally. Beyond that, restricting assassins for fluff reasons would be nice, but I’m not sure how needed it is for gameplay, though mast sniper assassins are a pain even if you fix the character thing, so…

  • Carey_Mahoney

    Hooray! 8th ed. at its pinnacle!

    • Not yet. Space Marines just got their Codex and it’s looking like going 7th edition again already. Just worse.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Not really?

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Power Gamer: Someone who makes the hardest list he can with his chosen army with the sole goal of stomping face.

    WAAC Gamer: A Power Gamer who is so desperate to win, he cheats.

    Band Wagoner: A power gamer who jumps to the flavor of the month army in an effort to rack up lots of easy victories.

  • Tigirus

    I mean the fix is pretty simple. Make it so characters cannot hide behind other characters then they can shoot what they need to, plus it makes more sense imho.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      #Fixed

  • Bootneck

    Lame, dont care about what is or isnt a WAC player

  • Bonemaw

    okay, but what will he do against Tzeentch flamer spam ? auto hitting lol

  • sloth42

    its no different to a tau commander army, which has the same character ruling, but they ruin your day by being able to charge fight, then retreat and shoot, so they can completely negate youre shooting phase.

  • MechBattler

    Wow. Those points are half or less than what they used to cost. I might feel a little dirty using my Vindicare now…..

  • Auretious Taak

    USE A FLAME THROWER!

    This article is crap and emphasises a complete lack of understanding of the basic underlying mechanics of the game.

    AUTOMATIC HITS ARE AUTOMATIC HITS.

  • NagaBaboon

    I think they should nerf the character rule by saying you can only shoot at a character if it’s the nearest non-character model

  • J Mad

    Bird Flocks dont care about these buys
    Bird Flocks dont care about alpha strike
    Bird flocks dont care about (Insert next BOLS QQ topic)
    Bird Flocks are life.

  • Da Gargoyle

    Not a huge problem for me. Big monsters and snipers counter that and as an Eldar I can now team psykers with Wraith units again. So D-scythe or Ranger them to death. Remember, you can’t restrict BS if the weapon hits automatically. And 10 snipers who can target characters are bound to inflict a kill with blade storm. And any army with former template weapons still has an auto hit defensive weapon against the charge.

  • Da Gargoyle

    I learned that part of the process with GW is learning to deal with new problems. So I applied my old work ethic, don’t buy the propaganda, when someone tells you it’s unbeatable that’s because they want your thinking like them. New problem, new solution.