Let's talk: What is "filth"

[Darth Alec]

With the release of the General's Handbook, there's been a resurge in the interest in competetive AoS. With that, old familiar terms have come back. Filth. Spammy. Unbalanced, and many more. Recently, in podcasts and chatrooms, I've noticed that "filth" has been thrown around a lot. Loads of people and armies have been accused of bringing or being filth. What does it really mean though? If a guy brings a filthy list, what comes to mind? Why is one list filthy and another not? I'm hoping you guys have some strong opinions here! We should talk about this, lest "filth" becomes a meaningless insult hurled at any sort of list people don't want to play against. I've added a few points, just to potentially add some structure to the talk.

 

Obviously, the very word filth brings associations to dirty, unclean etc. It's dirty, it's bad sports, unethical even, to bring a filthy list against an unprepared opponent. If John is a good guy, but decides to bring the filth, it's open ribbing season. If you consistently bring the filth, your are on the path to becoming that guy. A filthy list requires a social contract in a way a "soft" list doesn't. Nobody minds the Tehenhuian-led skink combat army, but the Kroak+Astral banners army is (or was) considered filth. There's a meaningful difference here that leads to one being acceptable, and the other derided. There's probably a lot of different reasons for this. What do you guys think?

 

Spam is often close connected to term filth. The Skryre army is filthy because it spams Mortal Wounds. The Bonesplittaz list is filth because it spams arrows. But this can't really be the answer, can it? Spam itself is a contested term, of course. But if we think of it as having significantly more of a single element than the norm, we see that there's got to be a difference. You could spam Retributors, but they would never be filth on their own. It's usually the combination of Sayl's spell with the Stormvermin that push them into filth territory, not simply the amount of them. Is filth just a spamming of very effective moves then? I don't think so. The classic filth, the Skryre digging formation, relies on both it's spamming of Mortal Wounds output and the manouvrability of the formation.  I feel like there's definitely a connection here, but it's more nebulous that simple spam good stuff = filth.

 

Are exploits the way, then? There's a lot to be said for unforseen combinations in the game. Sayl+Stormvermin certainly comes to mind. I would disagree with exploits being a good answer though. As long as it isn't cheating, it's legal. It's not really an exploit if it works within the rules. We can't expect the game designers to be all seeing and all knowing either. Every possibility cannot be accounted for. Playing "in ways the designers didn't intend" doesn't make something filth, because the designers have explicitly stated that we should play the game the way we enjoy it. Even if that means ludicrously stacking abilities or running combos that break the imagined intent of a unit.

 

A more compelling point, IMO, comes from the idea that "filthy lists deny your opponent a game. Not that your opponent cannot play or not having a chance. Rather, it means that your opponent has to play in a very specific way, or have very specific tools, to stand a chance. It simply isn't fun to play against, at most levels, because it restricts the opponents ability to act to a significant degree. So goes the idea, at least. Either the opponent plays exactly right, or the game is a loss. This isn't a simple matter of being objectively better, like how Space Marines are objectively better than Chaos Space Marines. Instead, it's about options.

 

There's a lot of other points that I'm sure can be made. So I invite you guys to make them! What is filth? What sort of list is filthy? What does it even mean?

[Dez]

What a fun topic! It's something I've been thinking about myself, particularly after seeing and hearing about some of the lists at Warlords.

On one hand, my gamer side thinks finding these combos is so fun! Way to go! Warp Lightning Cannons are a great way to compliment the close combat abilities of Bloodbound. Using Sayl to alternate flying different totally buffed Skaven units into places your opponent doesn't want them is shivers and hair standing up on arms worthy. Darkening the sky with arrows, absolutely the More is Better Ork way of life!

On the other hand...Fluffy Bunny is not particularly convinced that Skaven should be in the Chaos pantheon at all. They feel more like Destruction or their own Allegiance. Would Sayl really even be seen with these rats in public? Wouldn't the Bloodbound turn on the Skaven immediately for being weaklings, and offer up their skulls to Khorne only the be met with a polite 'meh, no thank you'? Orks...shooting...no. Orks get into your face and give you DA CHOPPA!!! Arrers iz fer grotz!

On your point of GW not being able to catch everything, this is my favorite and I believe most valid point. I think with all of their recent community involvement GW will be watching closely. I think the GHB may become a yearly updated item, with improvements in mind. 

 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Seems to me there are two methods to gain filth status:

All lists are on a theoretical scale with the fluffiest, easiest list to beat at the bottom and the unfluffy, toughest list to beat at the top. If we use 0-100 then the fluffy lists are 0-30, the average army would be between 30-70, tough lists 70-90 and "filth" lists 90-100.

The second way is that there is some arbitrary line that you cross by creating your list. It may actually only be in the 60-90 bracket on the above scale but because you have a certain combo or selection of units it is seen to be filth.

What I find interesting is that nobody complains if someone takes that 0-10 super fluffy list... The game would be as much of a non-game as taking a filth list, it's just the winner that is different.

[Turragor]

This might be a bit rambling as I really should be in bed but hey, interesting topic!

I think there's a broad bracket of player types and each would view 'filth' differently and what exactly makes up a 'filth' list probably moves on a scale for each player type. Example: If a bunch of newcomers haven't a lot of experience or even variety in units, the guy who brings skyborne slayers or 10 rets and a vex (none of which I believe are any kind of cutting edge meta any more) is probably going to have some whispering going on behind his back.

I'm new. I've dabbled in life but would still say I'm new to playing - I am.

I'm attending my first tourney in October and am under no illusions. I'm going to have fun, results don't matter.

If I meet a horrendous list, it would probably excite me. Just to see what can be done within a game system when you really know the rules and units.

That's personal though, how I react to that kind of thing in most walks of life. I've trained some martial arts most of my life and things like sparring are always 'out of your comfort zone but you feel good and learn after' experiences. I see an analogy there. Some people don't like sparring at all.*

Perhaps other newcomers don't have that same outlook.

Maybe there's a worry that filth drives newcomers off (hence the stigma).

But what about the other side of that bracket?

There's people in the tournament scene who have been shaping lists and learning rules for an age. They love the competitive side of it. It's a game about war and winning. It's player versus player. If there were professionals some of these guys might be them.

Pulling punches at the table is almost an insult surely for them and does that extend to the list? What is 'filth' then? How is it possible?

If you don't take the very best list you can conjure up what are you doing other than pulling punches?

I'd say you are experimenting, testing and trying some variety and fun. You're trying to learn and get better. At this level perhaps 'filth' is a rut - a stagnation of lists that isn't healthy for any gaming community.

Maybe, for all types of player, it is simply social. You can have a filth list and a great, sociable attitude. You can have a very well crafted list and a bit of  a superior attitude. I know who I'd prefer to play against.

*Interestingly, with this analogy there's usually only one way to take fewer punches when sparring, learn to do what your opponent is doing equally well. Again, risk of many people adopting filth. Fear of stagnation at the core of it all?

 

[Jonatan]

But what is filth? I think Alex put it well when he said "filthy lists deny your opponent a game. Not that your opponent cannot play or not having a chance. Rather, it means that your opponent has to play in a very specific way, or have very specific tools, to stand a chance. It simply isn't fun to play against, at most levels, because it restricts the opponents ability to act to a significant degree."

But what are the components for this deadly coctail we call filth?

For me it consists the following two components: 

1. Units that are too cheap
2. Exploits
 

Units that are to cheap
I do not think the rules for a unit is a deciding factor however it contributes to the cocktail or not. Lets take bonesplitterz as an example as it is a hot topic. Would the bonesplitterz kunning rook be considered filth if the arrowboys price would be raised to 250 points? I don't think so.

Exploits
Things that make you or your opponent loose a game without beeing able to react to it. Theese  might be things that the developers might have missed when they wrote the rule/sceanrio etc. The exploits are to my knowledge few and part from Settras kneeling effect I am not sure there are any. 
Maby teleporting units turn 1 into your oppents backline in the matched play scenario "Escalation" could fit in to this category (this is a stretch). 

 

Then we have the "filthy" player who proudly wears the WAAC pin nailed to his/hers shirt.
Do you as a player have the responsibility to ask yourself the following question "Will my opponent have fun playing this list?" when you are attending a matched play event? Or can we just accept that some players are there to actaully compete?

Me personally can respect a player who is there to compete and I do not see that player as douche. Gamey? Yes Bad person? No. 

 

 

[PJetski]

In lots of video games we have "cheesy" strategies, which refers to something that is both easy to pull off and difficult to counter.
Something like a protoss cannon rush (building defensive structures inside the enemy base) in starcraft is considered "cheese".

From my experience AOS has a few "cheese" armies, like Beastclaw Raiders with insanely powerful monsters, Vexillor + Retributors, Stormfiends, and High Elves spamming spells on Phoenixes to give them a 0+ save (on top of the Anointed 4+ ignore). They can be countered but it takes significantly more effort than it takes to use them.

I don't think there is any kind of overwhelmingly powerful strategy right now, but it would be nice if they took a 2nd look at point values for units like Stormfiends.

[Sadysaneto]

Whatevar dis not greenz is da filthy boss.

[Ollie Grimwood]

To be honest from the podcasts and other articles I've read it seems to be almost a badge of honour amongst the tournament regulars. Sort of a case of "he brought total filth" being the acknowledgment of someone picking a competitive list in that environment, a sort of tipping of the hat or raising of their glass in salute. 

It's part of any game that has an element of list building you simply can't just pick a random army and expect masses from it (that might be a challenge for some of the more competitive amongst you though). I don't really see much of an issue in the correct environment tournament yes, narative event no no no. 

[Bosmer Nightblade]

For me, a filth list would be a list that is:

A) Incredibly hard to beat and doesn't play within the spirit of the rules

OR

B) Incredibly hard to beat and doesn't play within the spirit of the lore

Everything else is just clever list building. For it to be filth I think it has to have an element of breaking the spirit of the game. That's what seems to be the common factor in what people consider to be filth.

 

[Veterannoob]

6 hours ago, Darth Alec said:

snippy**

 

A more compelling point, IMO, comes from the idea that "filthy lists deny your opponent a game. Not that your opponent cannot play or not having a chance. Rather, it means that your opponent has to play in a very specific way, or have very specific tools, to stand a chance. It simply isn't fun to play against, at most levels, because it restricts the opponents ability to act to a significant degree. So goes the idea, at least. Either the opponent plays exactly right, or the game is a loss. This isn't a simple matter of being objectively better, like how Space Marines are objectively better than Chaos Space Marines. Instead, it's about options.

 

There's a lot of other points that I'm sure can be made. So I invite you guys to make them! What is filth? What sort of list is filthy? What does it even mean?

Oh, you diplomatic Norwegians  But seriously though, this last point aligns with my interpretation of filth--spot on. I don't mind losing, rather used to it in tournaments  but I want a game. One-sided fights are boring on the big screen and their boring on the table. I can think of many 40K examples but for AoS the only "filthy" army I've played was a skaven gunline of mortal wounds and even that gave me 3 turns of ward savin' tunnelin' Fyreslayers to have no choice but to press forth at max speed.

But as @Ollie Grimwood said when I hear about filth on podcasts and jokingly in-person amongst friends it's usually ****** with someone or I guess our ancestors would say "take the ****** out of them" (see, I'm learning!) but I really haven't seen it with much malice. But that's only my experience. If I want to declare something bad form and unfun, denying a game, I guess we say "cheesy." An exploitation of the rules when one should know that resultant gaming experience is not in the spirit of a good game. 

 

wow...it censors such PG language

[Sleboda]

"Filth" is the war cry of the sore loser.

[Veterannoob]

6 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

"Filth" is the war cry of the sore loser.

Ha! Oooooo, glove dropped.

[Sleboda]

12 minutes ago, Veterannoob said:

Ha! Oooooo, glove dropped.

I've played a suuuuuper lot o' Warhammer-family games over the decades, and in my insanely overwhelming experience, it's true.   

It's like it's human nature or something to not want to adapt, to complain about someone or something else instead of looking inward. 

Also, quite often, filth-generating moments arise when folks change the game rules and then wonder why some unintended quirk messes things up.   Well, duh, you are playing some new game that you are still calling the old game, and then complaining that the old game (that you are no longer playing) is broken.  People rarely accept their portion of the blame for the problem, even if the problem is 90% because of them. 

[jobume]

For me, filth consists of two parts. The first is what has already been mentioned, the denying your opponent of a game. The second part is most of the time what enables the first part, and that is finding something in the rules that are off (in warhammer this is most often points, but could be some vaguely written rule) and exploiting it to the max. Therefore, the amount of filth that exists in a game is a reflection of how well written the game is for competitive play. Take "Magic the gathering" for example, the notion of filth barely exists in that game, because it is extremely well designed and tested.

[kaaras]

This comes down to a spirit of the game thing and expectation management. Nothing is filth if everyone is playing in that manner. The hardest list vs the hardest list. Fluff vs fluff. All is well. Its when the two mix that the problems come. 

From recent experience, when the event organiser says friendly, that means to keep it toned down, know that there are new people that may not have the tools, and keep the ridiculous out of the list. This was fine and the majority accepted this. However, one list in particular cropped up that was:

1. Not fun for anyone bar the owner

2. Making full use of exploits

3. Nowhere near the brief given by the organiser (ok, he was still allowed to play... that is a different argument)

This list was:

Settra

Necrosphinx

Mourngul

2 x 10 Skeletons for battleline.

This list cranks a ridiculous number of wounds, regenerates and takes away to hit values. When a friendly, beginner player comes up against this, would they ever want to come back? This is the sort of filth that I think the OP meant. Lists that, if in the right setting, would not be considered so (hard yes, unbeatable without the right tools, yes, but strong and make a tough opponent in a competitive setting, go for it) but in the wrong setting this is just horrid. 

My $0.02

[Braggoth]

So with the artillery cap being at 2 in 1000 points games, I came across a player who used the skaven Jezzails, which are artillery units that come by 3, but have a maximum size of 12 models per unit. With this the opponent had around 20 models shooting at 30" at 3+/3+ -1 rend and 2 damage (oh! and 2 mortal wounds on a 6 to hit).

Playing destruction, for me, it wasn't so bad seeing I was in close combat by turn 2 (even if he hugged the back of the table), but for many armies, that list is very hard to beat, they find themselves dead before even reaching them.

Filth level: I give them a solid 92/100

[Tiger]

9 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

It's part of any game that has an element of list building you simply can't just pick a random army and expect masses from it (that might be a challenge for some of the more competitive amongst you though). I don't really see much of an issue in the correct environment tournament yes, narative event no no no. 

Basically it all comes down to this. Some love to maximise certain game mechanic and go against opponents that are going to do likewise. I don't enjoy that way of play and have my own thoughts on it, I much prefer to play against people that enjoy a certain theme or narrative.

[Nico]

I think the completely out of line with fluff point is key. The idea of a Green Savage Orruk Gunline is so completely unfluffy that it hurts. Clan Skryre does suit the fluff, but the formation should be a campaign formation (so unusable in Matched Play) - it's almost as bad as Brotherhood of the Great Bolts.

Quote

Maby teleporting units turn 1 into your oppents backline in the matched play scenario "Escalation" could fit in to this category (this is a stretch). 

Yup - I think someone could autowin this battleplan by using Sayl to lob 40 Bloodreavers into the enemy territory, which is a really bad aspect of what is otherwise good Battleplan design.

[Dave Fraser]

As per the opening post 'filth' is laden with negative connotations, it's not an accident people use it.

What it's usually being used to described is the most optimum army builds and as the volume of data builds and the experience with the game grows ultimately there will be army combinations which are found to be just plain better than others for the points cost.  This is nothing new, it's existed as long as points and competitive gaming has existed.

 

What's the classic chess statement, something like " White is so overpowered, they always go first." Suitably tongue in cheek as it's the only bit of the game of chess which isn't totally equal but still gives people the opportunity to complain about something!

 

The game is never going to be perfectly balanced, it's the job of the community (& GW where they appear to consider this a responsibility at present, no guarantees though) to identify where these imbalances exist and then if a fundamental issue to the game make changes.  That said people jumping to conclusions and restricting everything sucks the fun out of armies too so it needs to be done with great care and only where the imbalance is so obviously impacting attendance (and I don't mean player numbers I mean army variety).  The most obvious example of this was the old GW Throne of Skulls GT where at the end of 7th there were basically only 3 armies in attendance out of a possible 15 (slight exaggeration but those 3 made up over 75% of the field) because if you wanted to win they were you're only realistic options.

 

On twitter an interesting discussion has spun out of this as to how Tournaments can better define what sort of lists players should be aiming for to prevent the knife to a gunfight (or vice versa).

[RuneBrush]

Completely agree with all of the points so far and at it's core a decent army build should ensure that both players have an enjoyable game - there should always be a chance that either player could win.

For me, a 'filthy army list' is an army that's generally been created around a particularly powerful combination of rules, buffs and synergies and the player has a "win at all costs" attitude.  Now I'm not saying anybody should be going into a game to lose, but having the attitude that your opponents enjoyment is irrelevant is counter to the whole concept of AoS.

I'm really glad that the Generals Handbook was produced and added points to the game, however it has allowed power-gamers back into the hobby who can hide behind the "legal army" argument when they play with a clearly unbalanced army.  Previously your opponent/group would have told you very clearly what they thought of your build and you'd end up with nobody to play against!  I'm a fan to tweaking my army list based on the type of event I'm going to - if it's a GT style event then it's no-holds barred, but a friendly (or narrative) event should mean you don't bring your ridiculous units along as you may be facing a very new player.

One thing that I'm finding very interesting too, is favourite game/sportmanship votes being awarded to players in tournaments - especially players at the top of the results.

Completely agree with @Nico on fluff too.  I love fluffy armies and every army I have has a very obvious theme to it that works in my head and I don't feel an idiot explaining to somebody.  I'm not going to add a Tzeentch warscroll to my Khorne army - it's Khorne based and he hates magic and tricksy Tzeentch most of all.  Now I won't criticise somebody who is happy with that, but for me it doesn't work.

[Arkiham]

i feel that filthy lists are lists you have to specifically build lists against, or be extremely lucky to win against.  

[Hotdropmartin]

So my thoughts on the current 'filth' discussion; 

What I think people mean when they use the term 'filth', are armies that are points and rules efficient with very strong combinations. They often work by killing or nerfing your opponents army before they have chance to reply. I've seen a lot of comments that 'filth armies' don't take skill to field, when really they just perform to a high level and are normally up against similar lists at tournaments or at gaming clubs. Many players play at this level and enjoy this style of gaming.

To win an event you have to play well and have a powerful army, so I think the term 'filth' in these circumstances is not a great description. For the other 95% of games I think the term 'filth' can be better applied but in specific circumstances. 
I personally don't want to play a game which I feel like I haven't won on merit (good tactical choices, knowledge of rules etc...). I think this is where players have to take responsibility for list choices and why they are playing. If you take a powerful army to curb stomp your opponent and your only objective is to win then yes I think players have every right to call your army filth and it shouldn't bother you.

I normally play at my local GW and often take a Mourngul in my death list. It's a powerful unit and often gets accused of being 'OP' or 'filthy' and against some armies it is very good.  I do try to offset its power by taking less powerful choices throughout my army.
The last game I played I obliterated my opponent. I didn't go into the game to make my opponent feel bad, or to win at all costs, it was just a bad match up in which my tactical choices and combos worked very well. It's a shame because my opponent didn't enjoy the game and complained that my army was filth.

It was disappointing to me personally that my opponent didn't enjoy the game and if we play again I will reduce the power of my army to make the game a better experience for him, but I think the term 'filth' was not a fair description of my army and me as a player.
I'm certainly not completely innocent as one of my first games was against a moonclan list before points which had 4 mangler squigs and fanatics and I really struggled to deal with it. At the time I felt "this is filth" and only afterwards after some analysis I realised it really wasn't, it was powerful and I didn't have the tools the deal with it, but my opponent didn't take those units just to curb stomp me nor to ruin my hobby. it was just a bad match up with slightly imbalanced armies.

Strangely enough I learnt so much from that game and it's made me a better player not just from a gaming perspective but as an opponent also.

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

For me, a 'filthy army list' is an army that's generally been created around a particularly powerful combination of rules, buffs and synergies and the player has a "win at all costs" attitude.  Now I'm not saying anybody should be going into a game to lose, but having the attitude that your opponents enjoyment is irrelevant is counter to the whole concept of AoS.

I have no issue with the elements you listed up until "at all costs." That implies cheating, too.  "All costs" means all.

Isn't part of the fun of list-buulding the rest of the things you listed?  Finding synergies, applying what you have learned before, improving, etc.

To me, the issue is tournaments themselves and, to a lesser degree, the inherently competitive nature of games in general.  Games have winners and losers. They have victort conditions. I can't fault an opponent for wanting to do the best jib he can to compete in a competition. What is he supposed to do? Choose to do worse than he knows he can?  That's wrong on so many levels, not the least of which is the disregard it shows for your opponent's skill.

Also, I think that the tournament setting places some responsibility on the players to recognize what they are doing. It IS a tournament. It IS a competition well beyond even that of a normal one-off game.

Don't go to a fine restaurant and complain when the staff asks you to turn off your full volume YouTube porno ("but I like to watch these and I watch at home all the time...don't tell me I have to adapt to the setting, the expectations, and the desires of all the people here who came to the elegant eating place to eat in style and peace.").

Don't go to a tournament and complain when your Seahorse-themed grot army gets trounced by a finely honed, legally constructed army that is built to win the competition being conducted at the competey thingie.

[Spiky Norman]

@Sleboda it seems to boil down to the fact that you do not think that a player have a responsibility for the enjoyment of his opponents, where others, me included, think that you do have some degree of responsibility for that. That there have some be some sort of compromise or consideration between the players.

To me, this is just a hobby. A hobby that I want to share with other people, and that can include a competitive element, but ultimately it is still a shared experience, that should be a good one for both parties, if at all possible.

[Sleboda]

No, no, no.  Not the case at all. Of course it's a shared experience.  I just think that all too often the blame gets 100% placed on the winner for winning and never on the other player for failing to understand that he or she has, indeed, entered into a competition.  

 

It's part of a larger issue I see (especially in America) where if you succeed, you get chastized for it.

 

For narrative play, man, I'm all about total cooperation to tell a story.  Gimme the beer, the desperate odds, the cinematic results ... all of it without giving a damn about who wins. 

 

In matched play, especially tournaments where (this is a big one) the results of your games have a fairly direct impact on the standings of the other paying attendees, you have a responsibility to compete to the best of your ability.

 

That said, even in the most hotly contested of games, don't be a ****** when you succeed.  It's like football.  When you score touchdown by beating the cornerback (because you studied more, trained more, and were the better player), be happy that you did.   Cheer. Highfive a fan.  Hug your team mates.  Great! Don't apologize for success ... BUT don't flip the ball at your opponent or point at his face and say something mean.  Celebrate your accomplishments and the fact that your hard work, brains, and skill paid off, but be respectful.

 

Likewise, when you get beat, tip your cap to the opponent.  Congratulate him.  Don't complain that he should have not run as fast or fought as hard for the ball or studied your coverage tendancies so much.  Take your loss, learn your lesson, and improve for the next match!  Then *you* will be doing something to give your oppenent a better game too, rather than expecting him to lower his abilities to match yours all the time.