Pimpcron: WAACs & Fluffs, Living Together

  • Posted by
  • at

Pimpcron has a plan on how every skill level can play together.

Salutations good people of Earth! Your 100% free-range and non-GMO Pimpcron is back. Today, I bring you an idea that was sent to me by a friend of mine. Robert from Fandexes contacted me years ago when I have my own blog and we have stayed friendly ever since. His website features fan-created codices that he and others have made. Check them out, they have lots of rules for different army types and even rules for AoS armies to enter 40k! I’ve used several of his codices and they are well written and balanced.

We Aren’t All The Same Skill Level

This is a topic I covered all the way back when the Pimpcron first started. It may have been my first article. I described how players make up a huge range of experience, skill level, and natural strategic ability. Some of us just suck at thinking; its science! Some of us just want to tell a good story or see a story unfold through models, and others just want a challenging game putting our skill to the test. Obviously if you have a normal gaming group, you will learn who is awesome and who needs supervision. In that case, if you are the better player, it is your duty (in my opinion) to do what you can for the weaker opponent and still make it fun for you as a challenge.

“Boo!”

“Ahhh! Don’t do that Jeremy. I peed a little.”

In my article, I explained how I deal with this when I’m the better player. I will just take a handicap in points, which usually ends up being 10%-20% fewer points than my crappy opponent. Unless they really know your army, they will never be aware of the disparity, and their feelings won’t be hurt. But on the flip side, you get more of a challenge because of your up-hill start to the battle. If you see yourself as a better player, than do what you can so that you both enjoy it.

It was last week that Robert private messaged me on Facebook with a new idea how both players can be happy.

Robert’s Suggestion

Robert: “I used to play to the best of my ability for years and without realizing it I was making the game less fun for my opponent. Since then I have tried to deliberately make the game harder for me to balance it out. Nowadays I use a difficulty level setting whenever my win ratio gets too high, and recommend it to those players who think that they’re really good to prove that it’s their skill, not their units, that results in victory.”

Ya hear that WAACs? Put your dice where your mouth is (but wash them first) and if you really feel that you are the mightiest of gamers, you won’t mind making it a little harder for yourself. You’re probably already doing that in your life anyway, making things harder for yourself, I mean. #everyoneisselfdestructive

WAAC Player: “So, do I just keep hitting on you while you ignore me, or what? This is how I date as well.”

It’s fairly basic but the general rule is the fewer units you can choose the higher the difficulty, and to stick to a theme. I will explain it using Tyranids:

Very Easy: Unbound.

Easy: Combining units from multiple codices or using a new codex.

Normal: Using an index army or a theme that rules out less than half of your codex.

Hard: Using a theme that rules out more than half of a codex.

Very Hard: Using a theme that cannot fill part of the FOC, e.g. no Troops or no Elites.

My Nid List Explanation

Very Easy: Take as many of any nasty thing you want.

Easy: Four Imperial Knights with some Genestealers? Sure.

Normal: Basically just write a normal list with mixed units.

Hard: Take all Tyranid Warriors with Tyranid Primes, can you handle it?

Very Hard: Take only Tyrant Guard. Go ahead; don’t be afraid if you’re such a great player.

They’re so cool, they pop their collars up.

You see? You will get the fight of your life, and your opponent with face a more fair fight. It’s a win-win scenario and everybody walks away happy. Also, there is no risk of them finding out that you handicapped yourself, you can just explain your list away as something you wanted to try.

As a side note, I had no idea that I always play on Hard Mode. It’s just the way I play, and I never thought about it. I always theme an army list just for fun, and because I’m a glutton for punishment, I do love my Tyranid Warriors. [Winces at the thought of weapons that do multiple damage]

Having played many, many different types of players, I would rate myself as about 7 on the strategy scale, and a 4 on the list-building-for-competitive-play scale. I just don’t have it in me to optimize a list to win. I’d rather throw a list together with no cohesion and say, “Can I make a win out of this?”

But to each, his own. Would you or do you use a strategy like this for making sure you both have a good time? Or do you not like having friends?

Pimpcron signature 3

2017 Shorehammer Button for BoLS

Or contact me at brutalityskirmishwargame@gmail.com for the latest rules if you don’t do the Facebooks.

  • Robert Thornton-Kaye

    Cheers PC! The Difficulty Levels are a draft so I’d be happy to see if anyone can improve upon it. I was thinking that for Easy mode is when you use several codices under the same Faction, so in the case of your example, taking GC Leman Russ tanks to back up your nid army.

  • Rob brown

    It’s a great concept idea. We do something similar but other ways of increasing difficulty are…

    – Don’t take special characters
    – Don’t take duplicate units – e.g three hive tyrants
    – hold off on obvious pair ups – Don’t take exocrines against primaris.

    • ZeeLobby

      Man. I remember when special characters used to be a handicap in itself XD.

      • Rob brown

        That is so true!

      • and then warmachine came out and everyone started fapping over super powered named heroes, and GW saw this and emulated it.

        • Robert Thornton-Kaye

          No 40K definitely did it before warmachine. I remember decades ago having friends who played with ‘armies’ of 6 models, 1 super character and 5 terminators.

          • Muninwing

            they were always “opponent’s permission” up until the DA codex in 4th, where they changed it to require SCs to play specialized lists.

            then they just removed the permission metric for everyone, and started buffing their power. i suppose WM 1st edition was around then, but i’m not sure how influential it was.

            the recent spike is much more arguable for the deliberate change. GW after all ignored the niche they were dominating to go try to compete on someone else’s turf… so why not do that with everything?

          • Koonitz

            Muninwing is right. I started in 3rd Edition, where every single special character, without exception, had an entry in their datasheet “requires opponents permission to play”.

            Because of this, no one ever used special characters where I played. Also because of this, I grew a dislike of special characters as a whole, preferring to play my own characters and build my own stories.

            This extends to other games, too. I don’t like how WM/Hordes, or X-Wing or the like pretty much require you to take named characters to play.

            Special characters are boring when everyone uses them. They ruin all sense of immersion the moment two players with the same one play against each other.

            I honestly doubt the removal of “requires opponents permission” was due to other games and was more as a result of “we have cool models and they aren’t selling well. Let’s remove all restrictions and let you use all of your models.”

            The jacking of their power levels was probably due to other games, though….

            In the end, though, I play Iron Hands Space Marines. Love all my GW supported special characters!

            All 0 of them.

          • Muninwing

            if every marine army is Ultras with Robbie G… then how incredibly boring is that? it plays one way, and takes knowledge of one counter to beat it.

            that’s not skill. that’s not actually playing. that’s going through the motions. why bother?

          • Koonitz

            And every AdMech army is Mars with Cawl, and every Death Guard army has Mortarion and every Thousand Sons army has Magnus, and often also Ahriman (and many Chaos armies have both). And every Sisters army has Celestine.

            These characters get boring to see. So much so that the moment I see them in a batrep online, I simply turn it off and find something else to watch. I don’t care about the outcome anymore.

          • tylran

            I have Sisters but don’t play them. I wouldn’t mind seeing Celestine if it meant seeing Sisters on the opposite side of the table. She’s nasty and hard to kill, sure, but still small fry when compared to Chapter Masters or the Primarchs.

            What I want is more powerful no-name characters. Avatar is a joke compared to Yncairne or the Primarchs. Or even most Daemon HQs to be fair. Same goes for most Primaris stuff and Sisters. Orks as well, I hear (haven’t played against Orks for at least 8 years).

          • because Rowboat gives you a power coefficient that is very high. Its like playing Madden competitively and then choosiing the Patriots every time. Why wouldn’t you?

            For the winz. The sweet sweet winz. The endorsements. The wheaties box cover. The Sports Illustrated covers. The parades. The glory. The fame of being a top tier acknowledged by your peers and white dwarf and warhammer-community.com as a top tier.

          • Muninwing

            i would always choose the Pats because i’m pretty sure it’s law where i live…

            but if i really wanted to show off how good i was at Madden, i’d choose a low-performing team. sure, everyone can win with the pats… but what about the browns? or worse?

            i’m only kidding a little. you know what i mean.

          • marxlives

            Is it Robbie G who is the problem or the fact that UM can’t win without him?

          • Muninwing

            UM can totally win without him. by playing well. turtling up and relying on one trick from a trite unit isn’t playing well, but it works because it’s cheap.

          • tylran

            I occasionally spice up my pure Primaris+Bobby G list by dropping Bobby, adding a Chaplain and some other Primaris stuff, like Redemptor or Reivers and roll with a fluffy 2nd Company Primaris detachment theme.

          • euansmith

            I miss the Chapter Tactics from 4th Ed (I think it was) where you got to design your own chapter. It was poorly implemented, but I do wish that GW had stuck with it and sorted it out.

          • Apocryphus

            I definately prefer to make my own characters and stories for them when playing 40k, GW’s named characters always feel so hollow and uninteresting on the table. As for WMH, since the game is centered around all those premade named characters, it doesn’t bother me. I find the ‘casters that I like the background and motivations of and build lists that feel like something they’d take to war in the fluff. It’s like having a favorite character in a fighting game.

          • marxlives

            True with WMH, casters ARE the center of your game, without them it is essentially playing chess without a Queen and King piece. I think the issue people are having with 40k at the moment is that 40k has always been a classic historical wargame reskinned as a sci-fi game.

            So while people don’t mind if you field Napoleon every once in awhile, they don’t like that you need to field him every time to win. In the past you could build your own character with upgrades and it would have the same powers as a special but there would usually be a 10-20 points variation between the two to mark the one thing special the special character had access to that a custom model didn’t.

            The game was more about the battle itself rather than the dueling of casters. With the importance of getting that 1st turn win and special characters behaving as pseudo warcasters but without the core rules being build around that fact it is a tough environment to adjust to.

          • Apocryphus

            I totally agree. It feels like the current rules are shoehorning the theme of a character centralised force into a game system that isn’t formatted to support it. The extreme generalisation of standard characters feels like a further attempt to push the special characters all the time idea, as the only way to get anything interesting is to take a Primarch or the equivalent. Relics are making things a bit more interesting, but still feels like characters have lost a lot of…character.

          • yep as everyone is discussing… 40k has had it for a while but it was always restricted. There were no tourneys or anything that let you do this.

            Warmachine was the first to embrace the named character bonanza in competitive play and warhammer and 40k followed shortly after realizing how big of a boner it gave the playerbase.

      • Muninwing

        one of the best changes they could make to 40k would be to seriously limit SCs. both to balance and to gameplay. one per army, or they cost one CP to field, or something…

        • euansmith

          Maybe they could give up a whole bunch of victory points if they got killed.

          • Muninwing

            i honestly think that this should be a universal rule. every SC would, in fact, boost major morale of everyone in their own army, from having such a storied hero on their side… but if they were to be seriously injured, or even killed, that morale and hope would break.

            giving d3 victory points for their death in addition to any other vp mechanics would do wonders for representing the unfortunate effects of losing a hero.

          • euansmith

            Or a big drop in Leadership; maybe a perils effect if your SC is a psyker 😉 There could be lots of risk/reward stuff attached to SCs.

            Equally, I’d like to see some of the real super heavies turned in to mobile terrain with a buff bubble effect appropriate to the unit, rather than actually having them using super rare relic ammunition to mow down conscripts.

        • Robert Thornton-Kaye

          Or they always use up a low slot and can only be taken in large battles.

          • Muninwing

            i like this too… but it’d be ALL — Chronus, Telion, etc too. and then we only see Rowboat ever again…

        • marxlives

          I like the idea of spending CP to field special characters. The cost points AND CPs and it actually makes sense. You are spending CPs to get the constant benefit that special characters give you.

          • euansmith

            Neat

          • marxlives

            And each special character would be worth a variable amount of CP’s. So for example if you fielded someone who gave a lot of buffs then that model would cost more command points, But if you fielded a character who was more of just a great model but their abilities were only contained to them then they would only 1 point.

          • euansmith

            They could even make “bad” characters who you could take for extra CP but who debuff your units 😀 Like Overlord Uri Petchenka in “Final Liberation”.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWWeMlFrQK4

  • orionburn III

    Make you a deal, Pimpy. You buy me the models needed to run 2k points worth of Tyrant Guard and I’ll happily do it! It’s only 18 boxes of Guard @ $70 a pop. That’s only $1260 to test out your theory. Pretty sure you’ll at least get free shipping. 😛

    • Robert Thornton-Kaye

      You can always proxy to see if your list works first. You don’t have to limit yourself to a single unit either. My mercs army consists of the elites marauders unit from the heretics codex plus guard vehicles and renegade commanders that they are allowed. Lots of variety, but no troops to claim objectives with.

      • orionburn III

        Quiet you! I want my $1260 worth of free models! 😛

        Friend of mine wanted to do a big proxy game that was a crazy list of pretty much nothing but Zoanthropes and Neurothropes and a splash of other things. Still would like to proxy it as it would be a fun game to play test but no way would I want to pay for that army…lol

  • thereturnofsuppuppers

    The example your friend uses in regards to narrative play is an interesting one.

    “I used to play to the best of my ability for years and without realizing it I was making the game less fun for my opponent”

    The answer presented to this problem is for the competitive player to take a less powerful list, and for him to challenge himself. I completely disagree that this would make a more enjoyable game for narrative players.

    I also think its a misconception to suggest that a narrative player would not be playing to their best of their ability, or that they are somehow less skilled at the game.

    I would suggest that the narrative player is both skilled and trying their best.

    The aims of a narrative player would be to use their knowledge of the fluff and the games systems to craft a interesting narrative experience, by choosing appropiriate models and scenarios and wielding them on the table like a director might control a set.

    This difference in aims is at odds with a competitively driven mindset.

    Both players wield wildly different skill sets, and that like competitive play, narrative play required much practise.

    With an understanding of both players aims, we can see that the player who is able to win more often, trying to win less often isn’t going to be any better at creating narrative experiences.

    A narrative player roleplaying less, isn’t going to create a more tactically enjoyable game.

    There seems to be a base misunderstanding of a narrative players aims and what is required to achieve them.

    Its not as black and white as I have presented though, and many competitive players can be amazing narrative players, and narrative players can be incredibly talented generals.

    I suck at the game.

    • Robert Thornton-Kaye

      The article suggests that narrative play makes the game harder for the owner of the narrative army regardless of that player’s skill, not that narrative players are less skilled.

      Some competitive players do not understand how to go easy on someone. I’ve seen genuinely nice people crush their opponents with powerful lists thinking that they were going easy on them. I hope that this guide helps those players guide themselves towards balancing the game more.

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        I was suggesting that there are many ways to be skillful at the game, and that the tactical challenge of a game might not be important to a narrative player.

        Narrative play might make it harder to win games, but winning may not be the goal of a narrative player.

        A competitive player with a tournament list going easy on a narrative player might not make the game more fun. Learning to create a narrative using the systems and fluff would be a more useful compromise.

    • Yup, narrative and competitive play really are distinct animals in terms of play. I’ve done competitive oriented leagues in the past, and while I didn’t take fluff abominations, it wasnt narrative gaming, and if I’d approached them from my narrative POV, I would’ve been miserable in those games, not because i lost (in the last competitive league I did all but one of the games were very hard fought and were determined by when the game ended), but because the gameplay made no sense in the context of the background, the missions were incoherent, it just wasn’t story telling, it was gaming. And that’s fine! We can enjoy the same game different ways, we just shouldn’t pretend we’re playing in a compatible way.

      Unfortunately, I really feel like 8th is not great as a narrative experience, so I’ve kind of given up on narrative 40k in favor of Necro/inquisimunda

  • WAAC and Fluff doesn’t represent a skill level. It represents a way of approaching the game. You can be bad at the game and still be a powergamer, just like you can be great at the game and understand there’s a time and place to not be a powergamer, such as in a narrative event.

    This concept that narrative gamers are just bad at the game is vapor. Its simply not true.

    A narrative gamer fields forces he feels represents the literature. Powergaming monstrosity lists often only represent their mathematical coefficient.

    If I want to do a narrative battle involving space marines and I choose to take four fully kitted out tactical marines, I understand that that is not the most optimal powergaming balls-crushing combination that I can spreadsheet in for the winz. I do it because in the story, tacticals make up the bulk of the space marine force.

    I’m also largely playing someone else with the same mindset. The end result will be a great game.

    Not playing to max out your excel spreadsheet’s power coefficient doesn’t make you a good or a bad player. It makes you a powergamer, which is a style of play that has nothing to do with skill level and everything to do with how you approach the game; there are plenty of really bad players that are also powergamers out there.

    Just like there are really good players that powergame in tournaments and know how to dial it back for narratives.

    • KingAceNumber1

      Well said =) take my upvote

    • Robert Thornton-Kaye

      The article doesn’t say that narrative players are less skilled, only that a more limited range of units makes the game harder, and can be used to balance out the difference in skill level between 2 players. For those WAAC players, this presents an option where they can prove that they are the best by making the game more difficult for themselves and still win.

      • There are a number of people that post daily about how narrative players are just bad at the game. Between that and some of the comments below, that was what drove my response.

    • Muninwing

      WAAC Play: we have armies. they are as equal in points as they can be. we have established fair or randomized victory conditions that i have maximized my army for. let’s play to see who can fulfill victory fastest.

      Narrative play: alright… so we’re both playing marines… and this table has a great ruins in the center… so maybe we’re rival chapters that are both trying to capture this relic and earn glory? no? well…. what about this — i’ve got some Gard in my trunk… how about i go get them while you set up the table with a set of buildings in the center… alright, so i’m planetary defense trying to hold this location, and i believe you’re corrupted by chaos because you want to steal the power source for our defense shield… but you need that power to spearhead an attack on the chaos base… now let’s come up with victory conditions that work with the points we have…

      a bad player in the first example would be no less bad in the second. a tactically gifted player might find the first one boring, and want more dimension to the game like in the second one.

      • Moises Martinez

        WAAC player are more tactical than narrative gamers…. Thus why they bring what makes sense to them tactically. Narrative players tend to bend/break the game rules because they want to play their army like the fluff states and not as the game rules are written. Narrative seems more theatrical than anything else. Written rules for the units dont even equal their fluff and vice versa. You want to play story mode, that’s fine. But it irritates me when narrative players come up with some absurd reason why a certain unit can do something that’s not written in the rules and when i tell them no, im the “bad guy”.

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          Could you give us an example of that happening? I’ve not really seen many players change rules mid game, unless the game being played has been agreed to be a narrative one.

          I would say, that is a person who is not skilled at narrative play. It takes two players’ input to really enjoy a narrative game.

          • Moises Martinez

            You just answered your own question.

        • Apocryphus

          I consider myself a narrative player and I play completely within the confines of the printed rules. I have never invented rules for units based on fluff and my lists are always 100% legal in terms of what I am allowed to take. In my play experience, fellow narrative players have also followed this list building and play method and I’ve never run into someone making up new rules for units or bending/breaking anything. Sounds to me like you found a particular exception.

          • Moises Martinez

            Glad you do. Gamer communities are a fickle thing. Ive only found a handful that i enjoy playing with.

        • Muninwing

          i’m gonna call BS right there.

          no. WAAC players are not more tactical. they are more competitive. full stop.

          some of the most tactical and skilled people i know who play have gotten bored with WAAC play being unrewarding, since they usually just win… so they’ve flocked to narrative games, especially ones where they can adjust the de facto difficulty settings so that they have to work harder for a win.

          and your experiences with narrative players rewriting things… it definitely an aberration. i’ve never even heard of people doing that before. i’m sure it does happen somewhere, but it’s not a norm. the closest i’ve seen to that is when a player who is fully aware of just how points-broken a unit is, offers to self-nerf because the unit is effectively unfair to take. but even that is rare.

          • Moises Martinez

            You can call all the bs in the world. You are literally contradicting yourself. The road to competitive is to beat your opponent via tactics. You have to know how, where, and when to use your units. Even OP units can get wrecked if the “WAAC” player has no clue how to play his army tactifully. All the math hammer in the world wont help if yoyr terrinle at tactics lol. Nice try though.

          • Muninwing

            knowing how to play a powered army, knowing how to play tactically and well, and knowing how to go through the motions because your army is literally a one-trick pony are all different things.

            and most of the WAAC players i’ve seen that aren’t upper-tier tournament players… they’re really just the third type. they don’t understand the big picture, they understand their own base tricks and cheap rule exploits.

            sorry you think there’s more to it.

      • Apocryphus

        Your narrative example sounds just like a conversation I had with my friend before a game last week, just switch Imperium with Chaos. :D. I think you have perfectly illustrated the mindsets of both player types.

  • fenrisful2

    I usually play highlander with a new codex only using half of the codex due to my models.

    • Muninwing

      i don’t see the point of highlander… except maybe in a starter/escalation league. having five weak choices is a bigger handicap than only one of each… and when some armies are specifically fluff-explained to be mostly based off of many squads of one kind, there’s really no reason to limit that way.

  • David

    Many fluff players who get angry when they lose are WAAC players.

    Most power gaming/tournament players are not. Yet im assuming you aim your article at them.

    You want gamers to get along how about starting by not insulting them.

    If someone is genuinely wanting to win at any cost they won’t handicap themselves because there aim is to WIN at Any Cost.

    • Robert Thornton-Kaye

      Then this is for those players who are better than average but aren’t determined to WAAC.

  • Fergie0044

    You’re using the ‘WAAC and Fluff’ labels too broadly here. I think there is a big difference between how you play the game and how you build your army/list. Personal example – I build armies/lists that are IMO fluffy and balanced. So they match what I think the actual army would like or in some way follow the fluff (i.e. lots of skitarri in my Ad Mech list and plague marine squads of 7) but then play them to the best of my ability.

  • Pimpcron

    Pro Tip: I have like, 6 words max to get my point across in an article title. So if the assault on your definition of a gamer label skews your entire view of the point of the article, you have my deepest apologies. :/ My first draft article title was Pimpcron: My Friend Robert Told Me A New Way To Settle The Skill Disparity Between Any Two Players In A Balanced Fashion, Thus Improving The World Through Harmony.

    • Pimpcron

      And, for the record, Fluff players in general bring more themed and less optimized lists. WAAC players will bring the nasty every time. Of course Fluff players aren’t bad gamers, they just approach it differently. But that difference in approach skews the balance pretty badly. which is why something like this is a good idea.

      • Damistar

        I believe your point is in regards to pick up games. If you know your opponent is the type to bring an army that reflects the background more than optimizes its advantages then take that into consideration when you make your list. It’s simply good manners

    • Spade McTrowel

      “Improving 40K Through Harmony” would have worked and been festive 🙂

  • Volcifar

    Grey Knights – use their Codex for automatic “hard mode”. Bonus difficulty if you refrain from using more than one Grand Master Nemesis Dreadknight.

  • Diagoras

    I honestly started laughing out loud at, “Take only Tyrant Guard.”

    Strange. Caught me off guard, I guess.

  • Muninwing

    this is why i wish there was a ranking system.

    Seriously… GW could integrate a ton of online tools and resources for those who sign up for their accounts, and make part of that a solid system for recording battles.

    have there be a way to officially report via a club or store.

    have there be two components — a letter that designates how you’ve done in tournament settings, much like Fencing has, where you earn it for placement based on the size of the tournament and how well you do… everyone who has played at least gets an E, with increasing difficulty and need for larger tournaments played in to get higher letters… someone who only does local tournament might never get higher than a C for winning a well-attended event.

    but then also have a number that uses a metric like Chess does… it goes up or down based on wins and losses dependent upon the ranking of your opponent. you report the win/loss to the store, and the score is auto-changed by a program.

    then, when you face off against someone, you have an idea of how well or poorly you can count on doing, and judge the game based on that. WAAC players curbstomping newbs would get old in a hurry, because their score wouldn’t increase much or at all.

    later, after the numbers had a few months to sort themselves out, GW could release a “handicapping” setting, where you had to option of taking more stratagems or more points/PL to make up the gap and change the results. so a high-score player could allow his opponent X in exchange for the scores being normalized and him being able to actually increase in rank.

    • Good idea. But insanely difficult to monitor and keep legit. Would be trivial to game the system to team up with my friends to help each other artificially inflate our ranking for ESPN endorsements and glittering prizes.

      It wouldn’t take long at all for the rankings to be garbage because half the people are gaming it and breaking it much liike they do to the game itself.

      • Muninwing

        oh, i have no doubt that it would be corruptible… but there are steps that could be taken to minimize that. one of which would be to tie to your greater account, including access to benefits like preordering or sales that you might not want to lose… and having it tied to address and/or other earned benefits so you cannot just make a new account and start over without a loss. it could also be only valid when reported via a licensed club or a specifically recognized representative from a store.

        sure, at that point, someone could still really break it (by bribing the store owner, or hacking the account or just having their rep friend enter fake battles)… but there might not be a point. all that would happen would be that your score would be artificially higher, and you’d lose what should be even battles. if you want it that badly, that’s pretty pathetic and utterly without effect for anyone else.

        the letters would have to be more monitored… but it’s the really big events that would matter anyway, and those are so public and well-monitored that it would be much harder to mess with that.

        • For big tournaments I think that’d work. Just not for every day play down at the store.

          • Muninwing

            it dovetails nicely with other ideas i have… and would maybe not work without them all. but i also think that they are missing the boat by not having official registered clubs.

            if you had a small club that was neighborhood or school based, and could be you and 5 friends, then you might not have a ranking. but you’d have bulletins and access to certain other resources… maybe the way you get an account for their online services is by being a registered member of a club.

            if you had enough people (say 10-25) and wanted to take it up a notch, you could pay a nominal fee (because paying for something makes people take it more seriously) and register as a different kind of club, that would have to be based at a retail location — either a GW store or a LGS, that agreed to allowing X events per year. maybe there’d be added benefits as well. plus, GW could use the group to playtest certain specific rules and report in, thus helping proof the game.

            more than that, and a third tier would open up. they’d have to agree to run more events, and have once-a-week open play nights, and maybe a painting clinic, but in general they’d be better apportioned to be able to do these things. and they’d get added benefits or access.

            the top two would have the tools necessary, available at the store, to register games for the scoring. using an app or a login, a QR code, or a number of other possible/available technologies, it would be possible to easily submit data from some sort of “official” source.

            honestly, a ranking would be largely irrelevant… but it would encourage certain people to be more involved. it would be a great way to encourage and motivate certain players. but as with anything, it wouldn’t work with everyone.

          • Mr.Gold

            you could even add other prizes based on other aspects of the hobby, e.g. you enter a painting competition (golden demon/armies on parade for example) and win so you could gain scores that way. giving you a bonus for nicely painted/converted armies (maybe at the discretion of a GW manager though?).

          • Muninwing

            that would be great — maybe a “medals” style award system or achievement system that could be earned over time… and maybe a rewards style system for some of those? though if there’s a real-world-money motivator, then people will be more likely to try to break the system…

  • EmperorOfMankind

    no… you just need to blatantly tell your opponent that you play to stomp the other person and completely expect the same. WAAC players tend to have a hard time not being that way. Telling them politely to stop isn’t likely to work.

    • Moises Martinez

      Thats what war is…

  • SiberianVI

    Lion ‘El Johnson was here.

    • Spade McTrowel

      Or was he??

      –Changeling

  • Mr.Gold

    what about just a straight handicap of -1CP for each Special Character you include, and -1CP for each duplicate unit you include (apart from Troops) (e.g. 2x units of Devastators cost -1CP for the second unit no matter how you arm them…), that way you can still have multiple decent units, but you will be able to have fewer tricks (stratagems) then if you stuck to less powerful lists…

    • Pimpcron

      I like that. Not a bad idea

  • Drpx

    Kurt Vonnegut warned us about this.