Let's talk: What is "filth"

[AGPO]

For me filth is anything that tries to take the player out of the game. If the only way your opponent can win is down to some appalling or incredibly lucky dice, then you're not really playing a strategy game anymore. In tournaments, list building is part of the competition so it's not the same issue. The flip side is that if you're in a more casual game, and by fluke your otherwise reasonable army and theirs are badly mismatched, it would be a bit filthy not to try and re-balance things somehow.

On the subject of being responsible for the other player's enjoyment, I'd say that's always true but in different ways. When I played rugby we always expected our opponents to go all out to beat us, even down to some "gamesmanship"/cheating as long as it wasn't dirty. However, we also always grabbed a beer with our opposite number afterwards and looked to play in the right spirit. It's a completely different sort of game to playing board games with my extended family at Christmas, because the type of interaction people are looking for is very different. The spirit however, remains the same. The same is true of tabletop gaming. Before you pick your army you should consider "is this going to give the other guy the type of game they're looking for?"

Lastly on the topic of balancing the rules set. The GW design team is very small, even with the help they sometimes draft in from the community they shouldn't be expected to keep up with the army of players crunching points and interpreting rules to try and squeeze out some extra advantage. This is especially true in a game with as many options as Age of Sigmar. Given the choice between a game with far more restrictions in the name of balance or a game which puts responsibility on players to consider their opponents, I know what I'd rather have.

[Veterannoob]

Yeah @AGPO the only games I dislike is when I am denied a game, a chance to play in at least 3/4 phases (40K) or I suppose every phase as applies in AoS.

[Oppenheimer]

I don't do tournaments because of this mentality. The point of the GH was to bring balance. But a few extra rules and some points won't actually do that. It's impossible to actually have a game that will always be balanced between the two sides just by using RAW. You also need to self regulate if you really want balance. But people who use filth don't want balance they want to win. And I don't want to play with those people so I guess I'll never be going to a tournament.

[Sleboda]

Non-exclusive, wanting balance and wanting to win. 

 

Just sayin'.

[Oppenheimer]

Absolutely. But I think playing with filth and wanting balance are exclusive. 

If tournaments were all full of people trying their best to bring a balanced army that didn't exploit overpowered strategies then I'd be cool with it. I'd expect everyone wants to win. It's more of a at what cost do they want to win.

[Ben]

I HAD A REPORT RAISED ON THIS THREAD AND READING THROUGH IT I CAN SEE WHY.  

LETS ALL TAKE A SCECOND TO REMEMBER WHY I SET THIS FORUM UP.  THATS SO PEOPLE HAVE A COOL PLACE TO HANG OUT AND CHAT AGE OF SIGMAR, AWAY FROM THE TROLLING, BICKERING AND GENERAL BAD FEELINGS THAT WERE FOUND IN OTHER PLACES OF THE ONLINE WARGAMING COMMUNITIES.  

RECENTLY I HAVE SEEN THE STANDARDS SLIPPING AND THIS THREAD IS AN EXAMPLE OF IT.  

I DON'T WANT TO START WAVING THE BAN-HAMMER AROUND, OR EVEN TO BE WARNING PEOPLE SO LETS ALL TRY AND PLAY NICE.  

HEATED DISCUSSIONS WILL HAPPEN AS WE ARE ALL PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR HOBBY BUT THERE IS NO PLACE FOR BICKERING, NAME CALLING AND BAD ATTITUDES ON THESE FORUMS.  

STOP IT NOW OR FEEL THE WRATH OF SIGMAR.

 

[Sleboda]

I disagree, but we may not be walking the same discussion path here.

 

I want balance and I want to win. I would be quite happy if all wins and losses came down to pure generalship, but I'm sure as heck not going to deliberately choose to do less than my best in a competition like a tournament. 

It's not up to me and, frankly, it woulD be sort of arrogant of me to assume that:

1) I know all armies, interactions, and options so well that I can determine what is best in life (absolutely rather than as an opinion).

 

2) My opponent is incapable of taking me at my best, so I need to take pity on hi or her and fight with one hand behind my back.

 

Also, know the setting.  In a tornament, all participants should be aiming to win. If that's not my goal, I go to the event as a bystander. I still get to socialize, play pick up games, and so on. But ... I'm not messing up the standings for the actual competitors by playing a different game, so to speak.

[AGPO]

@Sleboda I definitely get where you are coming from. It's why I think it ultimately comes down to context and expectations.

I must admit, there are parts of this thread that give me flashbacks to the time I gave up gaming because my local store became more about competitiveness than the social side. It all made me feel negative towards the competitive scene, until I went to my first tournament a few years later. The same kind of lists were present, but the attitude was friendly. The game was played in a friendly spirit and players propped up the bar and chatted tactics between games. All in all it was a great time and it changed my opinion on competitive gaming.

I still have a preference for narrative games, and it saddens me when I hear 40K players say they can't play a certain army they like because it has a "rubbish codex." Nonetheless, tabletop games are about having fun, and none of us has a monopoly on what constitutes fun. Just make sure you understand what your opponent expects in advance and try to have a laugh whilst playing.

[wayniac]

Isn't this just another term for the old "cheesy" or "beardy" of yore?  In GW's own words from the olden days (June 1998 to be exact), from Rick Priestly himself:  "Someone who is more interested in playing the rules than playing the game".  So basically, "filth" is a list built ONLY to win, without a care for the background of the army or having a thematic army beyond bringing the best in order to win.  Choices that are chosen purely for power, not because it makes sense that an army would have that particular unit.  In some cases the line gets blurred (e.g. Beastclaws are a heavy cavalry army, is it "filth" to max out on cavalry for what is a raiding force always on the move?) but typically you can often "tell" an army built with the express purpose of winning competitive games.  You often just "know" that the army wasn't built with a real theme or narrative behind it, it's just taking the best choices available.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Isn't this just another term for the old "cheesy" or "beardy" of yore?  In GW's own words from the olden days (June 1998 to be exact), from Rick Priestly himself:  "Someone who is more interested in playing the rules than playing the game".  So basically, "filth" is a list built ONLY to win, without a care for the background of the army or having a thematic army beyond bringing the best in order to win.  Choices that are chosen purely for power, not because it makes sense that an army would have that particular unit.  

I remember that Priestly Wisdom!  Ah, being old.

I also remember thinking just how naive and talking-out-of-both-sides-of-the-mouth it was.

It's why I was sooooo impressed with AoS.  Finally (finally!) GW had produced a rules set that matched their stated ideal. Finally they made a game that was almost completely, exclusively about the models. No points.  Bring what you want. Mix Neferata and some Griffon Knights on the same side of the table just because you have both units, have painted them, and want to play with them.

For years, and many editions, they reminded me of that scene from Devil's Advocate where Al Pacino says that the almighty (not starting a religious debate - honest!) sets the rules up in opposition.  Don't look!  Look, but don't touch! Touch, but don't taste! And so on. The point was like GW's approach - Here's some really cool stuff --- and here are victory conditions, point value, kill or be killed scenarios.  Them expecting all their customers to just sort of get along and "play nice" was more than a little naive.

Of course people will bring what gives them the best chance to win.  Of course! By making things that were better than others, and having the artistic (literary and visual) choices be subjective, you can't judge someone for their art, but you can judge them for their better/worse choices.  Plus, a clever gamer could always mask minmaxing with a good story, so really the whole play-the-fluff argument was always neutered by the system GW sold its customers.  (The fact that they charged not just for the models but also for the rules as well also clouded the issue.)

 

Anyway, yeah, just saying that I was really glad to see GW walk the walk with AoS.

 

Then came points.

[Sleboda]

Quote

 

Erm, think you've missed the point a little bit.  My opinion of "filth" is a list that is designed specifically to win and combining it with a win at all costs attitude - which includes not giving a monkies about if your opponent has a good time or not.

=> A list at a tournament absolutely should be designed specifically to win. The emphasis on winning (multiple games on the way to an overall win) is what makes a tournament different from a pickup game or a narrative game against a buddy.  As I've previously addressed, though, the attitude is important.  I've been tabled in games I had less than a snowball's chance in hell to win from the moment we matched up, but still enjoyed the hell out of the game.  I've handed out obliterating defeats to opponents and hated the game. The attitude of my opponent is what mattered. 

I have a concept I go by:

When you play, there is the action on the table and the interaction 3 feet above it. They are separate. On the table's surface (in a matched play game at a tournament) I will pursue the win with every (within the rules) option available to me. If that means learning the best way to play 3 units and applying what I've learned to the best of my ability and never fielding certain units because they are not as good (for me), then that's what I'll do. Meanwhile, 3 feet above the table, I'm talking about paint jobs, telling jokes (badly), and socializing with my opponent.  

I understand that the vehicle for my social interaction is a series of games with winners and losers, so I do what that vehicle requires, just as I would watch passers by at the mall and comment on their style of dress if that same person and I had opted to make people-watching our vehicle of social interaction.

 

Quote

 

List building is an art form in it's own right and should take into account the fluff of the army, if you're not interested in fluff then go and play chess or some other game - AoS is ALL about the fluff and I don't want to be facing cookie cutter armies when I play.

=> In a tournament, where the winner is determined by wins and losses, no, fluff is not something you need to take into account.  At all.  If you can, great!  It's a bonus though. If there is an award for fluffiest army, then by all means, go for it, but if you are trying to claim the tournament winner award, then win your games, and that means fielding the best army you can first and foremost. 

By the way, if there is an award for fluffiest army, it's completely subjective, so good luck trying to win it. There are tons of little bits of story fragment you can easily use as the basis for any army. If your TO/judge has not read that tidbit and you have, you are not getting the fluff award, even if your army is totally fluffy.

Side note: I've won the award for fluffiest army by deliberately choosing all the worst options the army had available. Not the fluffiest.  The worst. I deliberately made a horribly bad army - still with no (zero!) regard for the fluff (so, same 'crime against gaming' so to speak, but on the other end of the spectrum) - and won the fluff award. Says something about subjectivity and fluff evaluation, I believe.  Do people want fluff or do they just want a weak opponent? Food for thought.

Quote

 

I do think that if you have an army that keeps tabling your opponent you're doing it wrong, how is that competitive?

=> The only thing making it non-competitive is the lack of your opponent to elevate his game to a higher plateau. Your army is highly competitive. His is not.

Quote

 

Tweak your list to match your the opponents you're likely to face and prove that you're actually a decent general rather than somebody who knows a handful of units inside out.

=> (cue Darth Vader voice...) Nooooooooooo!

No participation awards.  No punishing success! Competition makes people better.  Choosing to succumb to social pressure and doing less than your best leads to stagnation.  I don't mind losing, even quite badly, because I can learn from defeat against a tough foe.

 

Quote

 

Also you don't know me so your examples don't apply at all and to be honest only apply to somebody with no social skills - I'd not go into a restaurant and watch anything on my phone, it's the height of rudeness.

=> True, it's rude, but it's also not my point.  My point was that you should know what the "rules" are for the thing you are doing. Don't talk at a movie and then get indignant when other patrons shush you. Don't blast videos at a restaurant and be angry when you are asked to leave. Don't try to win the Tour de France on a motorcycle and complain when you are not allowed to race. Don't turn in your math homework in English class and get angry when the teacher gives you a failing grade.

Don't participate in a tournament and expect others to not try their level best to beat you handily.

[AGPO]

I think we've established that tournaments =/= casual play.

To use the example of a martial arts club, at a competition you absolutely want to go all out to beat your opponent, and he'll do the same. You're trying to establish who is the best. However, if you're just training with someone of a lower grade or one of the social members who's not in good shape,  going all out would be pointless. We all know what the outcome would be before hand, nobody learns and all you achieve is potentially putting someone off your hobby. By helping them improve technique and tactics you potentially gain a friend and worthy opponent for the future.

 

Tl;Dr - there's a time and a place for hyper competitive lists. Filth is not knowing where that is. 

[Age of The Erstwood]

Perhaps the difference is then that a filthy army is one in which the architect knows, or imagines he knows, that he is going to win with it regardless of all other mechanics; luck, maths, generalship, victory conditions, scenario, etc.

As an example; There is a discussion over in the Chaos forum about a Skryre list that was designed by someone who thinks it is unbeatable, so much so that he refuses to even entertain anyone who enters into a discussion as to how they might beat it. I looked at and thought about that Skryre formation a while back and thought much the same thing. It's a list that seemingly can't be beat, and I'm sure there are other lists that have had a similar affect at the point they were conceived. A list that cannot be beaten.

There are other lists that when you first encounter them, seem unbeatable. I came across a Tomb Kings 1000 army (Settra, 2 battline chariots, 3 Necropolis Knights, a herald and a Tomb King) at my local store a few weeks back which at the time seemed unbeatable. Upon reflection however I think what made this army seem filthy to me then is that I wasn't aware of what it could do—and the same seems true of that Kunning Ruk army from Warlords. I think finding combinations and synergy such as these is actually just great list building, such good list building in fact that there is probably a very good chance you will win against someone who doesn't know what they are up against. And so perhaps if you're going to run a list like this you have a responsibility to make sure your opponent is aware, without giving away your strategy of course, of certain aspects of the synergy. If they are aware of what the army can do they at least have a chance to think about how to counter it. I now believe that I could beat that Tomb Kings army and, with the right combination of abilities, I could probably beat it quite easily with exactly same army I fielded that day and so now I no longer see it as filthy, just great list building. 

So filth, for me, has nothing to do with designing a list that you think you can win with, or even playing a WAAC game with it, its about not designing a list you think you can't lose with and thus—as the OP eloquently put—denying your opponent a game. 

Edited for formatting/grammar.

[Nico]

Quote

There are other lists that when you first encounter them, seem unbeatable. I came across a Tomb Kings 1000 army (Settra, 2 battline chariots, 3 Necropolis Knights, a herald and a Tomb King) at my local store a few weeks back which at the time seemed unbeatable. Upon reflection however I think what made this army seem filthy to me then is that I wasn't aware of what it could do—and the same seems true of that Kunning Ruk army from Warlords. I think finding combinations and synergy such as these is actually just great list building, such good list building in fact that there is probably a very good chance you will win against someone who doesn't know what they are up against. And so perhaps if you're going to run a list like this you have a responsibility to make sure your opponent is aware, without giving away your strategy of course, of certain aspects of the synergy. If they are aware of what the army can do they at least have a chance to think about how to counter it. I now believe that I could beat that Tomb Kings army and, with the right combination of abilities, I could probably beat it quite easily with exactly same army I fielded that day and so now I no longer see it as filthy, just great list building. 

Loads of Judicators and a sprinking of artillery would beat this if you take the first turn and wipe out the Necropolis Knights first turn (or snipe all the 5 wound heroes). This list works because people make the mistake of giving it first turn. Then a cheap unit deletes 25% of their army.

[Gaz Taylor]

It might be the lack of sleep but I'm really, really confused with this thread.

Six months ago or so, we didn't have points and we used Wounds, Mo Comp, SCGT Comp, or whatever and few people moaned. GW introduce a system which is basically the same as Wounds, Mo Comp, SCGT Comp or whatever and a few people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist!

All the points do in the Generals Handbook is give you a framework to go somewhere and play people you have never played before and have a game. But like with all things you need a bit of common sense. For example, if I'm going to a tournament I'm not going to bring my themed Dryad force around a Branchwraith called Mrs Terrywiddles that I only use in my narrative games. At the same time, I'm not going to be using my Clan Skyre force that can shoot you off in one turn, in the narrative campaign I'm playing with my mates.

So what does this mean? If you don't like points, well you don't need to use them. The General's Handbook has another two ways of playing (the rest of the book most people haven't read) and if you need points use one of the many, many systems floating around or make your own up!

 

[Age of The Erstwood]

5 minutes ago, Nico said:

Loads of Judicators and a sprinking of artillery would beat this if you take the first turn and wipe out the Necropolis Knights first turn (or snipe all the 5 wound heroes). This list works because people make the mistake of giving it first turn. Then a cheap unit deletes 25% of their army.

Yeah, I made exactly this mistake, giving him the first turn. Taking out the Herald is priority though.

[wayniac]

I think part of the overall issue is that Warhammer has always been the sort of game that's touted as being for everybody: Competitive, casual, in between, collectors, gamers, you name it.  But really, the big caveat there is that it only applies when you play with like-minded people.  For example, around me, it's what mostly looks like a semi-competitive crowd (both AOS and 40k), there is little or no narrative gaming going on, and people are unwilling to play anything other than larger games (overheard someone flat out refuse to play a game against someone because they only had enough for a Kill Team game).  The games themselves may be casual as in we don't have tournaments, but they are decidedly in the "I'm going to just show up and see who else turns up wanting a game" mentality rather than a standard group that plays regularly enough and wants to discuss things beforehand.

With AOS, it was nonexistent before points, as much as I hate to say it.  Now, it's Matched Play or nothing.  People have in casual talking say they would never choose to play AOS if GW didn't add points.  While there's nothing really wrong with points, it does tend to promote that "play to win" mentality and as a result people start to play "Mathhammer" and come up with things like abusing the Kunnin' Rukk to spam arrowboyz, or certain Clan Skryre builds that can be unbeatable are certainly abusing the fact that it's pretty clear the points system is very rough and intended only as a rough guideline for when you absolutely must have points (e.g. a structured league or a tournament), not as a way to build armies for every game, but sadly as I was afraid of, when points are added they become THE way to play.  Now I don't want to devolve this into a rant on points, but to get back on topic I do think that adding a points system sort of encourages "filthy" army design, because it always has since things can easily be quantified and therefore you can determine that taking X instead of Y is fundamentally better.  You could do this before without points (a lot of folks I routinely talk to on other forums argue that AOS needed points because before there was nothing stopping you from literally "filling your side of the table with the most powerful units in the game") but I find that having points tends to just exacerbate the problem because it boils it down to "But my army is 2,000 points, it MUST be balanced because it's legal" when without points there's much more of an "honor system" and general don't be a tool sort of guidelines in play to keep it in check; I'm sure people must have tried to game the system without points, but they would have quickly been shot down.

Now granted I am a relatively new player, and I play Flesh Eater Courts so my choices are fairly limited in scope and my main gimmick is nullified by Matched Play (i.e. summoning new units), but I do see a lot of the tournament type armies being definitely into that "competitive play to win" or "WIn At All Costs" mentality, just mixing and matching things purely for the in-game benefit without care to having a cohesive force with an actual backstory that looks like it "belongs" in the game world.

[Josh Meads]

Theres some pretty filthy lists but no worse than there ever was.

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that whatever list someone takes the tone and spirit of the game will be terrible/great dependant on the individual controlling it anyway. Played at the FHGT and some rough lists, but cool games nonetheless. 

I consider a filthy list when there is *nothing* that can be done to play your game. i.e mortal wounds being pumped out all over the place. Particularly bad when combined with the turn up anywhere rules. Again, had a good game against the sykre list as the guy was cool, but can't say I'd be pleased to come up against it at a tournament.

[Nico]

I think it was quite encouraging that the list that won the Facehammer GT (following a lot of chat about filth on Twitter and elsewhere) was a high (by their standards) body count, low hero Stormcast army.

[chord]

I preferred to play AoS before points.  I bought what I liked, talked to my opponent about what I would bring what they would bring and if not even we would tweak our armies.

Now it's all points, etc.  I know I'll have to buy certain models to make the games at least competitive.

[Nico]

There aren't that many utter junk units any more (except the Black Coach). Pretty much everything has a special rule of some kind or is really cheap.

[Sleboda]

The bone giant is a unit I would use in narrative play but won't touch in matched play.

When you can add it on as a sort of "hey, neat model and story - I think I'll field one or two" it's great to use.  

When its inclusion means something else has to be dropped, well, it sure looks purdy on the shelf!

This is the biggest loss with matched play. We go from a game where all models are welcome on the table to a more limited subset that gets used because they are "better."

Is that what leads to "filth?"

Maybe.

All I know is that matched play has brought more players into the game, but reduced the models that get used during it.

Don't get me wrong. It's good to have the option, but I miss my bone giants (for example) because they just have no place in the post-GH hobby.

 

[Nico]

Ok yes, the Bone Giant is a lot worse than the same value of Ushabti or Necropolis Knights.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

I preferred to play AoS before points.  I bought what I liked, talked to my opponent about what I would bring what they would bring and if not even we would tweak our armies.

Now it's all points, etc.  I know I'll have to buy certain models to make the games at least competitive.

That really isn't the case anymore. Whilst some units are certainly better than others and there are a few outlier which over or under perform, everything is useable.

[Ben]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

The bone giant is a unit I would use in narrative play but won't touch in matched play.

The one and only Robin Cruddace punched my face twice a turn with his bone giant filth at the Warlords.  

Filth I tell thee.