Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A lot of people on this forum and others I visit seem to have this notion that anyone who brings a tough list to a not-tournament game is a TFG WAAC player douchebag. I really don't see where this comes from, I have several people who play competitive netlists at an otherwise casual LGS and they are great fun to play against and I have never seen any of them talk down to players or flip out when they lose. So why do people always assume that Netlister=WAAC?

It's a mentality. I could bring the hardest list of all time, but I personally play to have fun, tell a cool story, and occasionally win a game. If I was of the win at all costs mentality, everything would be secondary to winning, including my opponent's enjoyment of the game.

Terms like WAAC are thrown around a bit too liberally. IMO there's various levels of WAAC, if you do everything within the rules to win (which includes using the latest netlist), I'd classify you as WAAC, that doesn't mean you're also a bad sportsman or "TFG". Being a sore loser or flipping out doesn't help you win, so I'm not sure why those things would be included in WAAC.

I think it's because generally the people who use "hard lists" care most about winning the game (as opposed to "forging a narrative"), ergo they are WAAC because otherwise why bring a netlist to a casual game, doubly so when it's one of the netlists that ignores any and all fluff for the army.

It's mostly because bringing a top tier list is one the things WAAC players often do to win, and the most common.

 Veteran of The Long War wrote:
A lot of people on this forum and others I visit seem to have this notion that anyone who brings a tough list to a not-tournament game is a TFG WAAC player douchebag. I really don't see where this comes from, I have several people who play competitive netlists at an otherwise casual LGS and they are great fun to play against and I have never seen any of them talk down to players or flip out when they lose. So why do people always assume that Netlister=WAAC?

That's a lot of buzzwords!

 Veteran of The Long War wrote:
A lot of people on this forum and others I visit seem to have this notion that anyone who brings a tough list to a not-tournament game is a TFG WAAC player douchebag. I really don't see where this comes from, I have several people who play competitive netlists at an otherwise casual LGS and they are great fun to play against and I have never seen any of them talk down to players or flip out when they lose. So why do people always assume that Netlister=WAAC?

Because you are that TFG when you bring NHL pros to steamroll kids playing street hockey.

It's definitely in your attitude and how you play. You can bring a hard as nails netlist, but if you are laughing and having fun, and not mincing every little thing to make you win then it's ok. Time for a story:

I was playing in the biggest tournament of my area (the St. Valentines day massacre for anyone near philly). Being a fairly inexperienced player, I found myself on the last table for our final game of 5. My opponent was playing Wraithguard Eldar, and was bemoaning the fact that he was in last and this was "the worst he's ever done". I was just there to play some 40K and have fun. He proceeded to make every effort to try and win, even though it meant nothing. He did things like moving his units so half of their base was in area terrain, that way he could claim a cover save while being half an inch closer. He also argued that since my one broadside was halfway behind a tree it couldn't fire (instead of being sporting and just giving it to me). Additionally he had two wraithlords kitted exactly the same way. I wounded one, and the next turn fired at them thinking I was shooting the same one. He put the wounds on the undamaged one (instead of killing the damaged one). When I admitted I had made a mistake and wanted to hit the other one, he wouldn't move the wounds, even though they were nearly identical. He ended up crushing me, even though it meant no difference for either of our standings. That was the most unfun game I have ever played.

My point is if you have a WAAC attitude when you don't need to, it just makes the game really unfun for everyone. It's not about how hard your list is, it's about how you approach the match.

Like previously mentioned, it's a lot more about attitude. I run 5 FMCs in my nid list. People can complain about them, but I play to the strength of my codex. I'm perfectly happy winning or losing, but I'm going to give myself a glance at victory. If I don't take them I'm really hamstringing my own army. But nids are a tricky codex right now.

Generally, outside of playing in a tournament or prepping for a tournament or playing against a like-minded highly competitive individual, it's helpful to *always* bring a more laid back & less optimised list to open/friendly gaming nights.
Why is this? Simply put, the vast majority of gamers are not interested in netlisting/fully optimising their own lists and just enjoy playing with the models they have/like the most.

It's never fun to go into a game where you know you have literally 0 chance of even competing, let alone winning.
If you're a competitive player or simply enjoy using only the most optimised stuff, then at the very least it's on you to forewarn your opponent so they either have a chance to change-up their list or find another game against a list that isn't so cutthroat.

I know a lot of competitive players think, "so what, playing vs. hard as nails lists makes you better so suck it up buttercup and lrn2ply!lol!" But honestly, the majority of players aren't in this hobby/game to become some kind of semi-pro at man dollies, so that attitude is pretty harsh and can really begin to poison a community if it's pushed too hard.
If someone really wants to improve and become a top level competitor, they'll do so (and likely will try to ask for help/tips, challenge the top players to games, etc...)
Otherwise, take it down a notch when the situation calls for it and try out something beyond that super perfected list that crushes opponents within 3 turns... who knows, trying out a couple units you may have initially passed off as trash may lead you to discovering new combo's & tactics you'd never thought of before?!

Before you play a game, use your pie hole for something other than your 15th Mountain Dew for the day.

"Do you want a game?

How many points?

Fluffy or competitive?

What kind of game are you looking for? Stronghold assault, escalation, lords of war?

Let's roll."

The confusion is because of a loud and obnoxious group of "casual at all costs" players who assume that lists that are good at winning games are automatically "not fun" or "not fluffy", while weak lists are automatically "fun" and "fluffy" regardless of how much fun they are to play against or how well they represent the background fiction. These are the people who will scream at you for being a "WAAC" player and taking the game too seriously, and write epic multi-page rants about how you need to be more casual. Needless to say their definition of "casual" doesn't have anything to do with the one used by everyone else.

Generally speaking I find the difference between a competitive player with a hard list and a WAAC player is how they treat you.

Both can run the same exact list but the WAAC player will use everything they can (usually legally, but sometimes not) to win. To them you don't matter, it's all about them and their enjoyment. Forget the time you're sinking into the game to play it or anything else, if they aren't enjoying themselves it's your fault.

On the flipside the hard-lister will usually adjust their playstyle to match yours a bit. They may make intentionally bad choices to balance out the odds so that you can enjoy yourself too. Many hard-listers I've known will try and give you tips, or explain things (though some only do it after the game) that you could do better next time.

Basically it's a personality/mentality thing. That isn't to say that all of them fall perfectly into one group or another but there is usually a noticeable difference that can usually be found by asking "Am I having fun playing this person?"

 PraetorDave wrote:
He did things like moving his units so half of their base was in area terrain, that way he could claim a cover save while being half an inch closer.

Yeah, that was just horrible. How dare he play the game according to the perfectly clear rules about how cover saves and area terrain are supposed to work. I bet this TFG also insisted on moving his infantry up to 6"?

He also argued that since my one broadside was halfway behind a tree it couldn't fire (instead of being sporting and just giving it to me).

Again, shocking. I can't imagine how much it must suck to play against a TFG who actually says that you can't shoot if you don't have LOS instead of just letting you put your models wherever you want and still shoot at everything.

When I admitted I had made a mistake and wanted to hit the other one, he wouldn't move the wounds, even though they were nearly identical.

It's a tournament. You made a mistake, you deal with the consequences of that mistake. Unless your opponent was deliberately refusing to be clear about which model was wounded it's entirely your fault if you didn't bother to check which one you were shooting at before declaring it as a target. Your opponent has no obligation to let you change your strategy just because you thought of a better one.

Anyway, I guess I'm with the OP. I don't like the "WAAC" terminology having as much traction as it does because it's lumping things together that don't necissarily go together. By making it a term, it's created the assumption trying to win = being an unlikable jerk. One of my favorite players down at my FLGS is super competitive and has some of the more obnoxious mean lists going right now, but he's also really fun to play against, a good sport, and a good dude who'll talk to you after a game to discuss strategies and what not.

A jerk is a jerk. Doesn't matter if they've got a hardcore list or a funzies list. I've been a jerk before, and probably will again. Can be said of any person belonging to the human species. The trick is identifying those bad habits within yourself and making yourself a better person for it, before labeling other people you dislike.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PraetorDave wrote:
He did things like moving his units so half of their base was in area terrain, that way he could claim a cover save while being half an inch closer.

Yeah, that was just horrible. How dare he play the game according to the perfectly clear rules about how cover saves and area terrain are supposed to work. I bet this TFG also insisted on moving his infantry up to 6"?

He also argued that since my one broadside was halfway behind a tree it couldn't fire (instead of being sporting and just giving it to me).

Again, shocking. I can't imagine how much it must suck to play against a TFG who actually says that you can't shoot if you don't have LOS instead of just letting you put your models wherever you want and still shoot at everything.

When I admitted I had made a mistake and wanted to hit the other one, he wouldn't move the wounds, even though they were nearly identical.

It's a tournament. You made a mistake, you deal with the consequences of that mistake. Unless your opponent was deliberately refusing to be clear about which model was wounded it's entirely your fault if you didn't bother to check which one you were shooting at before declaring it as a target. Your opponent has no obligation to let you change your strategy just because you thought of a better one.

I think you're missing the point of his post.

He's highlighting the difference between a WAAC player and a player with a competitive army list.

There was essentially nothing at stake in that game, non-WAAC players at that point would have focussed on the game being fun for both players instead of playing a cutting edge game.

I don't think the strict enforcement of the rules would have bothered him if he'd been playing for the title.

The person suggested in that story is not WAAC, as they don't appear to be doing anything "at any cost", they're simply playing the game by the rules as provided. That they aren't "house ruling" anything (like the LOS issue) is not WAAC... WAAC would be positioning the model just so, so that it both has clear LOS but also gains the benefit of cover (or, at least, arguing that it does).... or constructing the model in such a way that it gains an advantage ("Modeling for Advantage", or MFA, is indicative of both being WAAC and TFG), such as a lower profile and wider view-angle for LOS purposes (so that the tree, for example, sits in between its stupidly-wide paired twin-linked lascannons... so it gets cover from the tree but still shoots you with all four lascannons or something).

WAAC = Winning at all costs.

While attitude is a big part of it, we should not undervalue the term "all". That include cheating, rule bending, and modeling for advantage. Taking advantage of the rules as written or taking units that are more cost effective is as much a part of the game as having fun or making fluffy list (nevermind how subjective having fun is, nor that fluffing and competitive are exclusive!)

So when player x complains that player y is playing the game wrong and should stop using the units that player y likes because those units just so happens to be better than the unit player x is using, then it's not player y being WAAC, it's player x being a scrub

 Frank&Stein wrote:
There was essentially nothing at stake in that game, non-WAAC players at that point would have focussed on the game being fun for both players instead of playing a cutting edge game.

No, you're just confusing "playing for fun" with "letting your opponent invent new rules so they can win". Look at it from the perspective of the other player in that story:

I was playing in the biggest tournament of my area (the St. Valentines day massacre for anyone near Philly). Being a fairly unlucky player, I found myself on the last table for our final game of 5. My opponent was playing Tau, and was insisting on a "casual" game to end the day. He proceeded to make every effort to try and win, even though it meant nothing. He did things like trying to invent new rules for area terrain and whining that my units weren't "far enough" into the terrain to get a save, according to his new rule. He also argued that we needed to change the LOS rules to allow his Broadside to fire even though it didn't have LOS, and then insisted that I "be sporting" and let him do it. Additionally he made a bad decision and shot at my undamaged Wraithlord instead of the wounded one, and then insisted that he should be able to go back and put the wounds on the "correct" Wraithlord when he failed to do enough damage to kill the one he shot at. And then he posted a forum rant about how "unreasonable" I was being by not letting him make up new rules to give himself undeserved advantages, when all I wanted to do was play a nice straightforward game with the normal rules.

 Veteran of The Long War wrote:
A lot of people on this forum and others I visit seem to have this notion that anyone who brings a tough list to a not-tournament game is a TFG WAAC player douchebag. I really don't see where this comes from, I have several people who play competitive netlists at an otherwise casual LGS and they are great fun to play against and I have never seen any of them talk down to players or flip out when they lose. So why do people always assume that Netlister=WAAC?

Ev eryone who is my friend is a hard player. Everyone else is WAAC.

As its been pointed out, there are basically competitve players and casual players, and their extreme versions, and both of them see each other as the extreme with distaste a lot.

Its moronic really, and as much a case of the circumstances of your area as it is your personality. I have always wanted to play fluffy lists for fun, but I've rarely had the opportunity to because my environment is mostly brutal and competitive. I'd say that I'm roughly somewhere in the middle, more leaning towards competitive because of my experiences. I still test the odds and try the odd unit for fun in the competitive environments and typically never use the same list twice for variation.

Netlisting never creates a good impression because its seen to be trying to find victory with as little of the effort in between. Honestly, I think people shouldn't take netlists and save themselves the trouble of writing a list because that's so dull and wasteful of opportunities to be creative, but I'd never chastise anyone for it openly face to face.

I am really against the "Don't take netlist" approach.
For example my first gloss through the Tau codex and I made lists for the drone commander builds, which is very similar to a lot of netlists. I'm not going to stop using it because other people found a similar idea and posted it online.

Unless you're also for people not using any advice they learned in the Tactics section, since it's no fun to use any idea you didn't learn for yourself or think of with your own creativity.

As a number of people have stated the difference is one is an attitude and one is an army building style.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with hard list building, against other hard lists it's the sensible and respectful thing to do.

WAAC for me is not like the examples given, that player was playing to the rules (The broadside thing, I guess if it was close enough you thought you could see but he disagree's I'd let the model be moved to a place we both agreed you could see from, they are relentless right?, but then if he's still playing like it's a serious tourney game that's understandable, did you both agree to play in a relaxed casual way before or just you?)

WAAC is the pressing of every ambiguity, every fuzzy situation to their favour. LOS is a classic one, if you've got to the point where you feel like every time you move your models you need to check they have LOS to your intended target with your opponent odds are you're facing this. Also things like springing hot topic rules debates mid game right as he needs them rather than at the beginning of the game so you can be prepared either way, like I say I think it's an attitude so nailing down specifics is tricky.

It's hard to define when you come right down to it, maybe when it feels like the game has stopped being a fun game and the person your are playing with has gone from being "the other player" to something to be overcome.

Same with me. Its more an attitude really.

Relaxed, casual =/= shoot w/o LOS.

For some reason, people on this forum think bringing the good units in your codex is a bad thing. The majority of situations I've seen has been people here think that care bear lists are the way to go, and I personally think it's bad for the community. I think bringing the best in your book helps others become better at the game and learn much more and open their mind a little bit. I also think it's perfectly fine to use a good list and think it's acceptable and fun to forge a narrative whilst doing so.

In my mind, a hard list is a list that's optimized to win and may be very difficult to beat, but generally is built within some set of voluntary restrictions, be they fluff or model preference or something else, and isn't usually intended to take advantage of unexpected synergies or questionable rules quirks.

Meanwhile, again to my mind, a WAAC list is one that is just straight built to win with no other considerations, theme is irrelevant, models no matter how ugly or inappropriate to the rest of the army will be used, and every conceivable rule or loophole taken advantage of. This is often as much a state of mind as anything else, as the attitude will carry over into gameplay as well.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
WAAC = Winning at all costs.

While attitude is a big part of it, we should not undervalue the term "all". That include cheating, rule bending, and modeling for advantage. Taking advantage of the rules as written or taking units that are more cost effective is as much a part of the game as having fun or making fluffy list (nevermind how subjective having fun is, nor that fluffing and competitive are exclusive!)

So when player x complains that player y is playing the game wrong and should stop using the units that player y likes because those units just so happens to be better than the unit player x is using, then it's not player y being WAAC, it's player x being a scrub

This. Not gimping yourself isn't the same as trying to win at all costs.

When I think of WAAC I usually think of list tailoring. For example my friend just started Tau during very late in 5th and asked a guy for a practice game. The guy brought a DA army consisting mostly of Terminators with Typhoon Missile Launchers. Needless to say it was a rather short game and didn't really do any good for practice.

I do agree that it's mostly about attitude. For example one player may make a good conversion for a model that's slightly off the original model's profile but just did it for aesthetic purposes. I've seen players purposely using old style carnifaxes to get easier cover or even converting a tervigon to have an incredibly small body with long limbs just to try and get 25% of it's body into area terrain easy. I've had players make up grav shute deep striking rules on the spot and try to tell me that a vendetta can draw los to my models when I'm on a tower well above it because as a flyer it can move up and down as it pleases.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
WAAC = Winning at all costs.

While attitude is a big part of it, we should not undervalue the term "all". That include cheating, rule bending, and modeling for advantage. Taking advantage of the rules as written or taking units that are more cost effective is as much a part of the game as having fun or making fluffy list (nevermind how subjective having fun is, nor that fluffing and competitive are exclusive!)

So when player x complains that player y is playing the game wrong and should stop using the units that player y likes because those units just so happens to be better than the unit player x is using, then it's not player y being WAAC, it's player x being a scrub

This. Not gimping yourself isn't the same as trying to win at all costs.

THANK YOU!!! Finally some other people see this.