Let's talk: What is "filth"

[Sleboda]

Ah, yes, but how did it perform in the game?  ☺

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

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

Filth I tell thee.  

That's because he wrote the damn rules for it and the entire army!

[Sleboda]

I don't know the man on a personal level, but from my perspective, that's not claim he should want to crow about too loudly.

TK were the bottom of the barrel in 8th.  Easily.

[Broken]

On 26 September 2016 at 8:22 AM, RuneBrush said:

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.  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.

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

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.  Equally I'd not complain about playing anybody who beat me if I we both had an enjoyable game, yes I want to win and I'll try my best which may or may not be good enough.  Would I go away and examine what went wrong and how I could improve - of course I would but my a good game shouldn't require me to go out and add a new unit to my army.

 

Here your projecting what you want and saying "this is good because I want it". You don't have a valid argument in this post for why it's wrong for a competitive list to aim to table the opponent as fast as possible. All you have is "I want to play THIS game and I want THIS to happen, so I'm correct". It's a deeply flawed argument as it's purely emotional and doesn't hold value to any one but you.

10 hours ago, wayniac said:

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.

This isn't true. I was put off of AoS because of the lack of points. I didn't want to play silly buggers deciding if my unit of 20 Goblins is worth your unit of 10 knights every time I met someone who wanted to play. I can simply go "I have a 1k, 1.5k and 2k list, what size do you want to play?" they can pick and then we get our models out and play. That doesn't mean I squeezes every last point out to have the most powerful tournament list, it just saves everyone time. I can have a competitive list and a casual list with me that both come to whatever points cost and pick whichever we're going as we decide the points cost.

It looks like a lot of people upset by points costs have no interest in playing a wargame, they want to play a game of D&D with more models. That's not what the majority of people want and no one is stopping you from playing it with others who want to play that way.

 

[wayniac]

Not quite, it's more that people like myself feel that points aren't needed if you want a community rather than just turn up at a game store (in the US this is common) and see who else also decided to go to the store; a little discussion or deciding what seems fair allows for much more interesting games than straight "2000 points, Pitched Battle scenarios only, rules as written, no deviation" kind of stuff that ever since the GHB came out has become the default style of gaming.  We aren't going to see alternate comp systems anymore (even though some are better than GHB points) now that we have points. We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios from the Battletome books, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist.

The problem is that points, when introduced, supersede everything else and it becomes "Points or GTFO", and essentially cuts the game down in half because anything that doesn't fit into the Matched Play perspective may as well not be part of the game at all because nobody is willing to use it anymore.  In my area you can't get a game unless you use points (barring like demo games versus newbies) because everyone is afraid of some cheesemeister abusing no points, and refuses to talk about what would make an enjoyable game so points makes it so they don't have to talk or discuss anything, it boils everything down to numbers.

I can go into much more detail but as I said before this isn't the thread to do so

[Broken]

This thread is a fine example of why the no points system doesn't work. People read forums and have completely wrong evaluations on models and then proceed to take that to the game table or have weird personal experiences. Lets say Jim is a good player and always smashes Jeff using an army of Cold one knights. He knows exactly how to use them and Jeff folds on turn 3 when they charge his army and it all dies. Jeff is going to see those knights as being incredibly powerful. Now Fred plays Wanderers and turn 2 his Glade guard have wiped those Cold one knights off the table, this happens every single game where they're just deleted the moment they are in LOS.

Jeff is going to say Cold one knights are say +2 good while Fred is going to say they are -2 bad. Take this to the extreme and you include the Internet discussions in this and it becomes impossible to balance a game that way. It's Schrodinger's cat of balance everything and nothing is broken. Then you have to consider player skill where at low levels a model is really good, but at high levels it's really bad. Maybe the model has a spell that's difficult to use but if you can set it up it instantly wins you the game. How do you balance that with your opponent when you don't know them? That model is worth an army in the right hands but worth nothing in the wrong hands. Do we roll a D6 to decide?

 

[Terry Pike]

A few people mentioned exploits in the game, but failed to mention what they actually were. As someone who pushes strong lists at a fair amount of events I attend I would be interested to know of any actual exploits so I can factor these in when finding weaknesses in my list. So far every combination or keywords/buffs etc I have found is well within the rules of the game, comp pack or event.

The message I've taken from these last 5 pages of text is: people use 'filth' as a term for stuff they can't compete with on the table by either knowingly taking a weaker army or just not understanding the mechanics/tricks of the opponents list. e.g. you let a player charge you turn 1 because you haven't factored in enough chaff into your list to stop that kind of thing happening. This happened to me recently at Warlords, I knew I didn't have enough chaff and suffered at the event for it.

A strong, well rounded and balanced army will have the best chance at beating the 'filth' lists. Because a strong, well rounded and balanced army is the real filth.

[Nico]

Quote

A strong, well rounded and balanced army will have the best chance at beating the 'filth' lists. Because a strong, well rounded and balanced army is the real filth.

The Stormcast list that won FHGT being a case in point.

[jamierk]

It's also a fine example of why no points system will ever 'work' in a game based on dice with asymmetric sides. There is no objective 'point' system which has no variation in relative internal and external power balanced that can take into scenarios.

Still we enjoy the game, I'm I think some people are tired or reading the negativity in this thread, despite it being well intentioned discussion. So let's move on.

This thread is a fine example of why the no points system doesn't work. People read forums and have completely wrong evaluations on models and then proceed to take that to the game table or have weird personal experiences. Lets say Jim is a good player and always smashes Jeff using an army of Cold one knights. He knows exactly how to use them and Jeff folds on turn 3 when they charge his army and it all dies. Jeff is going to see those knights as being incredibly powerful. Now Fred plays Wanderers and turn 2 his Glade guard have wiped those Cold one knights off the table, this happens every single game where they're just deleted the moment they are in LOS.

Jeff is going to say Cold one knights are say +2 good while Fred is going to say they are -2 bad. Take this to the extreme and you include the Internet discussions in this and it becomes impossible to balance a game that way. It's Schrodinger's cat of balance everything and nothing is broken. Then you have to consider player skill where at low levels a model is really good, but at high levels it's really bad. Maybe the model has a spell that's difficult to use but if you can set it up it instantly wins you the game. How do you balance that with your opponent when you don't know them? That model is worth an army in the right hands but worth nothing in the wrong hands. Do we roll a D6 to decide?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gaz Taylor]

11 hours ago, Broken said:

It looks like a lot of people upset by points costs have no interest in playing a wargame, they want to play a game of D&D with more models. That's not what the majority of people want and no one is stopping you from playing it with others who want to play that way.

 

11 hours ago, wayniac said:

In my area you can't get a game unless you use points (barring like demo games versus newbies) because everyone is afraid of some cheesemeister abusing no points, and refuses to talk about what would make an enjoyable game so points makes it so they don't have to talk or discuss anything, it boils everything down to numbers.

I think these two quotes sum up this discussion perfectly.

At the end of the day this is a game of toy soldiers we all play for fun, but some people's version of fun is slightly different to others. You just need to meet in the middle somewhere or alternatively if you don't like points, try an arrange games where you can play how you want to play (and visa versa).

As for Filth, I think @Terry Pike has hit the nail on the head how a lot of people see it. The great thing with AOS though is that because we use scenarios and not straight up kill everything type games, it becomes a lot more difficult to have that one killer list and games become less Rock/Paper/Scissors. 

[axis mundi]

17 hours ago, Ben said:

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

Filth I tell thee.  

I was "run over" by Robin's army on my second game of the weekend, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience.  I didn't realise who he was until after the game had finished, but I shook his hand at the start when I realised he hadn't brought the usual "filth" ie a unit of 6 Necopolis Knights.  Turned out he didn't need them... :-)

The Warlords weekend did make me ponder the issues raised in this thread though.  My reaction immediately after the weekend was that the absence of the Clash or SCGT caps on unit size or overall shots per army was a good thing - my most enjoyable games were against armies that would have been "legal" under those systems, the less enjoyable ones were against forces that wouldn't have been.  They weren't uber filthy by any stretch - but the difference between a 60 man Night Gobbo unit and 40 man one proved to be the kind of thing that swung them.  Maybe.

I'm going to say "Maybe", because on further reflection (helped by reading most of this thread)  I think I was just unprepared for what I encountered.  I played a game at my local club last night that illustrated this further - I took my list from Warlords, that I'd felt had really not performed at all well, and then walked right over my opponent who had brought a very fluffy Stormcast/Free Peoples alliance.  He hadn't prepared, just brought what he had lying around really - and resulting one-sided carnage made my list look much nastier than it was.

That said, he could have held me to a Minor Victory if he'd wanted to, and I think that's an interesting take-away from Warlords.  GW seem to have scored Minor Victories very low compared to Majors - almost treating them like draws.  I can't remember if Robin got the Major when we played, I think he did, but if he did it was on the last roll of the game, and there was a lot of frantic movement in the last turn to scrabble over it. 

The way the scenarios work, it seems to me that over a 6 or 5 game weekend there is not much chance that a very one-sided filth list stands any chance of scoring enough Major Victories to take it - and so long as TO's score Minors much lower, this should work as a balancing method.

One-dayers are a different matter though - over 3 games I think a "trick" list could be successful, and if the field is small really spoil the day.  I'd like to see the shooting cap at least stay in place for those kinds of events.

 

[Sleboda]

...

on further reflection (helped by reading most of this thread)  I think I was just unprepared for what I encountered.  I played a game at my local club last night that illustrated this further - I took my list from Warlords, that I'd felt had really not performed at all well, and then walked right over my opponent who had brought a very fluffy Stormcast/Free Peoples alliance.  He hadn't prepared, just brought what he had lying around really - and resulting one-sided carnage made my list look much nastier than it was.

 

Probably the best insight in the thread.  

We need more Vulcans.

[Broken]

3 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

It the end of the day this is a game of toy soldiers we all play for fun, but some people's version of fun is slightly different to others. You just need to meet in the middle somewhere or alternatively if you don't like points, try an arrange games where you can play how you want to play (and visa versa)

But why compromise? If you compromise neither person gets what they want and everyone is miserable. Seems a better idea for each side to take their ball and play whatever game they like, but accept that some areas will have one ball more popular than the other. I think the AoS community could do with taking a look at the Warmachine community for how they operate. Going into the game it's expecting people will play competitive lists, but they still reserve the top tier tournament lists for games about them. Some models are underpowered and good players will play them against bad players to even the odds, but it's always expected your opponent is going to try and win not write fanfiction with dice instead of pens.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

That said, he could have held me to a Minor Victory if he'd wanted to, and I think that's an interesting take-away from Warlords.  GW seem to have scored Minor Victories very low compared to Majors - almost treating them like draws.  I can't remember if Robin got the Major when we played, I think he did, but if he did it was on the last roll of the game, and there was a lot of frantic movement in the last turn to scrabble over it. 

The way the scenarios work, it seems to me that over a 6 or 5 game weekend there is not much chance that a very one-sided filth list stands any chance of scoring enough Major Victories to take it - and so long as TO's score Minors much lower, this should work as a balancing method.

One-dayers are a different matter though - over 3 games I think a "trick" list could be successful, and if the field is small really spoil the day.  I'd like to see the shooting cap at least stay in place for those kinds of events.

This is a very good point, a lot of people don't seem to be happy with the minor victory being rated so far lower in their scoring system but I agree.

Looking at the battleplans a minor victory isn't far off a draw, because the objectives were contested or they killed more than their opponent's army.

From what I can see most of the top lists at warlords were fairly balanced armies, not full of trickery.

The winner seems to have won by strong ability with a list which is a hard counter to what was the current meta, small model count high mortal wound output armies.

[Nico]

Quote

The winner seems to have won by strong ability with a list which is a hard counter to what was the current meta, small model count high mortal wound output armies.

To be fair, the Arrowboyz combo is a hard counter to most things other than Fulminators. The damage output is extremely high compared to the cost and the effective range is colossal - (move Double (10 + D3) in hero phase, then 5 in movement phase, then shoot 18). To beat it, you've either got to:

1. Snipe the Warboss first turn (and get to choose first turn); 
2. Wipe out both blocks of Archers in the first turn (I can only think of Tomb Kings being able to wipe out the Archers in one turn on the basis that he has a chaff wall - 6+ buffed Necropolis Knights, double pile in); 
3. Spam Fulminators
4. Flood them with 12 Crypt Ghouls, with mystic shield and double 5+ ward saves (backed up by a Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon with the Ring (who casts his spell, then runs away from the archers). Get a double turn.
5. Take Nagash, summon a Mourngul and mystic shield it. Nagash then runs away from the Archers like the overpriced joke he is.
6. Hit his army really hard by playing for a double turn that gets both archer units under 20 models.
7. Send in a (sacrificial) Wizard who can unbind both Hand of Gork and the +1 to Hit Spell Brutal Beast Spirits. This could be Arkhan (movement 16) or a summoned Lord of Change.
8. Use Teclis to slow down the archers (more than cancelling out Hand of Gork) and hit them with lots of longer range shooting - Kurnoth Hunters, artillery. 

[Gaz Taylor]

40 minutes ago, Broken said:

But why compromise? If you compromise neither person gets what they want and everyone is miserable. Seems a better idea for each side to take their ball and play whatever game they like, but accept that some areas will have one ball more popular than the other. 

Yup. At the end of the day, you play the game how you want to play and try and play with like minded people. That's why the Generals Handbook has three different ways of playing. Plus you haven't got to do any of that and play how you want to play  

[Spiky Norman]

1 hour ago, Broken said:

But why compromise? If you compromise neither person gets what they want and everyone is miserable. Seems a better idea for each side to take their ball and play whatever game they like, but accept that some areas will have one ball more popular than the other. I think the AoS community could do with taking a look at the Warmachine community for how they operate. Going into the game it's expecting people will play competitive lists, but they still reserve the top tier tournament lists for games about them. Some models are underpowered and good players will play them against bad players to even the odds, but it's always expected your opponent is going to try and win not write fanfiction with dice instead of pens.

I guess this is where you and I completely disagree. You see compromise as a bad thing, that will create 2 unhappy outcomes, where I see a good compromise as a good thing and worth working for, that can create a happy outcome for both parties.

I really hope that the AoS community where I am, will not look to the classic Warmachine community, because to me mini-wargaming is not a "sport" it's a hobby. That way lies 2D cardboard "terrain" and minis that might as well be cardboard token.

Overall I'm with Jervis Johnson thoughts on how to approach mini-wargaming.

[MechaBriZilla]

17 hours ago, Broken said:

Here your projecting what you want and saying "this is good because I want it". You don't have a valid argument in this post for why it's wrong for a competitive list to aim to table the opponent as fast as possible. All you have is "I want to play THIS game and I want THIS to happen, so I'm correct". It's a deeply flawed argument as it's purely emotional and doesn't hold value to any one but you.

This isn't true. I was put off of AoS because of the lack of points. I didn't want to play silly buggers deciding if my unit of 20 Goblins is worth your unit of 10 knights every time I met someone who wanted to play. I can simply go "I have a 1k, 1.5k and 2k list, what size do you want to play?" they can pick and then we get our models out and play. That doesn't mean I squeezes every last point out to have the most powerful tournament list, it just saves everyone time. I can have a competitive list and a casual list with me that both come to whatever points cost and pick whichever we're going as we decide the points cost.

It looks like a lot of people upset by points costs have no interest in playing a wargame, they want to play a game of D&D with more models. That's not what the majority of people want and no one is stopping you from playing it with others who want to play that way.

 

The game actually is about what we want it to be.  One style of play isn't more valid than another.  Anyway, please don't tell people they don't want to play a war game.  We actually do want to play war games.  If we wanted D&D we'd do that.  This forum has been a really awesome and friendly place to hang out, and share a fondness for all aspects of AoS.  I respect that you don't want to play without points, but please be respectful of the fact that many of us, especially those of us who stayed after The End Times, do in fact like narrative play, with or without points.  It is actually what the system was originally built to do, so please don't demean those of us who are here for that, and we won't demean your desire to use points.

51 minutes ago, Broken said:

But why compromise? If you compromise neither person gets what they want and everyone is miserable. Seems a better idea for each side to take their ball and play whatever game they like, but accept that some areas will have one ball more popular than the other. I think the AoS community could do with taking a look at the Warmachine community for how they operate. Going into the game it's expecting people will play competitive lists, but they still reserve the top tier tournament lists for games about them. Some models are underpowered and good players will play them against bad players to even the odds, but it's always expected your opponent is going to try and win not write fanfiction with dice instead of pens.

We always compromise.  Every day.  No one gets what they want, and that is beautiful.... Little TMBG ref for you.

Anyway, Outside of organized events, I don't honestly know how you play a game without some compromise, even if it's just the interpretation of different rules and such.  Even tournaments contain compromise, it just happens before you sign up..  When you join a tournament, you agree to the compromises the TO's decided on before you signed up.

As for your last comments, please be a little more open to the way others choose to enjoy this game.  If people want to write 'fanfiction' with dice as you put it, great! Let them.  No need to put it down.  

As for being more like Warmachine, if I wanted to play that way, I would be playing Warmachine...

I like Age of Sigmar because it is versatile, it's easy to learn, hard to master.  It supports open play, campaign play, narrative play, and competitive play, and I personally want to do all of those.  They all have their good side and bad side.  But that is what makes this game great.  We finally have a game that belongs to the players, and since that is the way GW designed it, I think we all need to accept that players who enjoy one version more than another are a part of this community, and should be respected.

As a personal note, I've always seen points play as a bit misleading.  Not that I don't like it, but that the idea that it's balanced is a little silly when discussing an asymmetrical, collectible game of any sort.  Also, I feel like it gives 'that guy' a framework to justify his silliness.  Of course you always have 'that guy' points or not.  But at least without points, he has no leg to stand on to defend unsportsmanlike behavior

To be more in keeping with the original purpose of the thread, here's what I think Filth is.  It's anything that isn't in keeping with the social contract of the game or is unsportsmanlike.  i.e.: if you come to a narrative fluff game with your tournament list.  As for tournaments, I don't really know.  I haven't done the tournament scene, yet.  But I would think it probably has more to do with the 'how' the game is played, rather than the 'what' the game is played with.  I mean, at a tournament, the point is to win.  Even if I go, with only the intention of getting a few games in and to see some armies in action that I wouldn't normally see, and get to talk game, I still would expect the list on the other side to be built to win.  With that in mind, I'd say filth is unsportsmanlike conduct.  I.e.: Cheating, purposely attempting to stretch rules ambiguity to it's absolute limit, and generally being unfriendly to your opponents.

[StoneMonk]

Still trying to read through everything. When I was a new player, i started with ogres because I thought they were cool, but in local meta the "filth" word got thrown at the army which made me feel bad for playing them. "Broken" is another word that can skew someone's view of a unit and can influence their fun when they see it across the table for the first time.

I do think that events, clubs and individuals should be clear about the atmosphere they want to play. People who enjoy no-holds-barred play should not feel bad for that. People who enjoy 'fluffy' should not feel bad for that either. So pick the opponents and events that match your style of play, OR keep an open mind when trying out other events. 

Also, fluffy is objective. AoS puts khorne and Tzeentch in fights together, stormcast and skeletons, and orruks can have bows. If there's not a story about it, you can write one to fit your army. The test is whether or not everyone at the table is expecting the same experience. Points still don't solve everything.

Great conversation!

[chord]

 

23 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

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.

Not everything is useable on its own, they are usable/competitive together.  To use them and stay competitive you'll need to purchase the appropriate models to use with them. 

[Sleboda]

It's anything that isn't in keeping with the social contract of the game 

Interesting.  By that definition of filth, isn't the person who goes to a tournament with a "weak" list actually bringing filth? 

[MechaBriZilla]

12 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Interesting.  By that definition of filth, isn't the person who goes to a tournament with a "weak" list actually bringing filth? 

I guess it depends a little.  I would say if there is no attempt to provide opponents with an interesting and challenging game, then maybe....  But I'd be a little reluctant to cast that net too wide.  Otherwise you might be including in that list players who want to be competitive, but haven't gotten there yet.

I'll use myself as an example.  I've never done the tournament thing, so I think I fit well.  Though I haven't found one yet, I'd love to get a tournament in sometime over the the next year.  It's highly likely that I will get trounced at said tournament.  But, my intention will be to learn, and bring a better list or strategy to the next one, and to continue to improve in that way over time. 

Now, if I just kept going to tournaments with the same list and strategy over and over again, I'd be purposefully compromising other players experience.  So, in this case, I think it would be.

Of course, it's also possible that I just suck at the game, but love competitive play, and will remain bottom of the barrel for my entire tournament going life.  This wouldn't be, since I'd honestly be trying to get better.

Bottom line. Yeah, I think purposefully continuing to bring garbage lists to tournaments and denying serious players good games or just a spot at the table is pretty filthy.  But, I also think it would be incredibly difficult to pick this sort of player out, since you can't really know what their intentions are.  End of the day, if you go to a tournament, you should be trying to win.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

 
Not everything is useable on its own, they are usable/competitive together.  To use them and stay competitive you'll need to purchase the appropriate models to use with them. 

I'm sorry but that's an opinion I really can't get behind.

Firstly you rarely use a unit on its own, it's part of an army so of course you need to purchase more models.

Secondly useable and competitive are not the same. Useable means that unit can do something in the game, even if all it does is get in the way and die, it's useable. Competitive it's completely different, not everything in your army has to be competitive.

In my Fyreslayer army I have Auric Hearthguard. 100 points for 5 models with 1 wound and a 5+ save. They have an average, short ranged shooting ability so they need to get close to the enemy. Are they competitive? Hell no. But they're certainly usable in many situations and I love the models and theme so I take away some competitiveness in my army by including them.

[chord]

1 minute ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

 

 

I'm sorry but that's an opinion I really can't get behind.

Firstly you rarely use a unit on its own, it's part of an army so of course you need to purchase more models.

Secondly useable and competitive are not the same. Useable means that unit can do something in the game, even if all it does is get in the way and die, it's useable. Competitive it's completely different, not everything in your army has to be competitive.

In my Fyreslayer army I have Auric Hearthguard. 100 points for 5 models with 1 wound and a 5+ save. They have an average, short ranged shooting ability so they need to get close to the enemy. Are they competitive? Hell no. But they're certainly usable in many situations and I love the models and theme so I take away some competitiveness in my army by including them.

 

Fair point.

I like my Stormcast Prosecutors in open play because at 100 points they are too costly for what they do (which is die a lot). In matched play you need to use them with a battalion to bring them in matched play

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Fair point.
I like my Stormcast Prosecutors in open play because at 100 points they are too costly for what they do (which is die a lot). In matched play you need to use them with a battalion to bring them in matched play

Yeah prosecutors are really quite terrible at most things. I use them as distractions and objective grabbers. People are scared of a unit of 6 for some reason. Never actually put them in combat though lol.