Another post on these forums made me debate where that thin line exactly is that goes between Competitive and WAAC Players.
This is an open topic created for the purpose of discussion. Enjoy!

Its a pejorative meant to hurt. Honestly the definition has more to do with a sore-loser then than an actual WAAC player. That's not to say there are no WAAC players, just not as many as people believe.

Competitive = tries hard to win within the rules. Optimized lists with all the best units, ignoring fluff if it improves their chances of winning, etc. The game is about competition, a test of skill where the best player wins.

WAAC = win at ALL costs. Cheating, rules lawyering, abusing every RAW issue they can find that favors their army, etc. The game is all about winning, no matter what it takes.

The competitive player uses Shadowsun in a Farsight bomb army because a 2+ cover save on the Farsight bomb is great. The WAAC player does the same thing and then tells you that your models can't charge the Farsight bomb because they're wearing helmets and you have to draw LOS from their eyes.

The competitive player uses Shadowsun in a Farsight bomb army because a 2+ cover save on the Farsight bomb is great.

That's not really the competitive player's fault, though. If this combination isn't "supposed" to happen then it shouldn't be allowed in the rules.

 Sidstyler wrote:
That's not really the competitive player's fault, though. If this combination isn't "supposed" to happen then it shouldn't be allowed in the rules.

Who said it's a problem? I'm not criticizing the competitive player for doing it, I'm just saying that they're going to make choices like Farsight/Shadowsun based on their effectiveness at winning games instead of fluff.

I dunno, maybe I'm just too used to people phrasing it as if it were some huge problem and shaming people for doing it when there's really no one to blame but GW for even allowing it to begin with.

And this is why I posed the question. Is WAAC just something a sore loser yells, or is it a player reading a very liberal interpretation of the rules for his own benefit?

gealgain wrote:
And this is why I posed the question. Is WAAC just something a sore loser yells, or is it a player reading a very liberal interpretation of the rules for his own benefit?

It's a little of both. "WAAC" is often the instinctive response by certain people that hate the idea of someone having fun in a way that they don't approve of, but there are actual WAAC players out there who will rules lawyer/cheat/etc if it gives them a better chance of winning.

Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

If you're not sure if something is just within range or just out a competitive player will roll off for it, a WAAC player will say it is whatever one they want it to be.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

^this.

I see myself as competetive. I will rarely argue rules, admit when I'm wrong, but love a challenge, and will not toy around. I want to win and have fun.

My best friend is WAAC. He even says he's WAAC. He's argued rules, crawled things down to a halt in a match, fight over situations, suddenly forget rules he needs to know, And refuses to play if he's certain he cannot win.

Competitive player's response if you ask if you can take back a move, or do something you should have done earlier in the turn:
"Sure mate, no problem"
Then he crushes you.

WAAC player's response to the same question "No, sorry"
Then he crushes you.

Basically it all boils down to attitude, a "competitive" player can roflstomp you, you'll shake his hand, and start thinking what you could have done better, different or changes you could make to your list.

If a WAAC player does the same, you'll feel vaguely violated and start thinking how you can avoid playing him again in the future.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:
Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.
.

Actually, pretty much all of those things in the second paragraph would be crossing the line for me.

It's miniature wargaming, not an Olympic sport (and even then there is such a thing called 'gamesmanship'). I wouldn't play a second game against someone who did those things, and I'm pretty sure they would get nudged sideways out of the clubs I play at before too long.

 Pacific wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:
Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.
.

Actually, pretty much all of those things in the second paragraph would be crossing the line for me.

It's miniature wargaming, not an Olympic sport (and even then there is such a thing called 'gamesmanship'). I wouldn't play a second game against someone who did those things, and I'm pretty sure they would get nudged sideways out of the clubs I play at before too long.

And that's kind of my point. The WAAC player doesn't care about gamesmanship or sportsmanship, but still doesn't actually cheat. I avoid WAAC players like the plague for the same reasons as you.

I will relay my opinion on this with a little story....

Soooo.. There is a big Apocalypse Tourney in Brisbane, in the 'Bunker' at Mt Gravatt. I find out about this through some mates of mine that work there. I proceed to tell my buddies who live in Ipswich (about 45 Mins drive away ) about it - they were unaware. $60 Entry fee per side.

As I have been building an Imperator Titan for the last year and a half - this is my big opportunity to show it to the Local Community, and kick some Butts. It is a team event - a friend of mine Anthony is my team-mate - my other Buddies from Ipswich tell me they are playing as well - however - innocent me - I don't press them when they keep their Army list secret, and intersperse discussions about upcoming Tourney with childish giggles and secretive looks...

So - Tourney day rocks around - I show up with my Titan and about 2000 points in Vanilla Marines - these two 'Buddies' of mine show up - a COMPLETE Flyer list, with Termies /Chainfist combos.

They then proceed to do these ridiculous loops around my Titans legs 'We are INSIDE your Void shields , so they don't work at all blah/blah. Deep strike the Termies @ my feet, and proceed to destroy every weapon etc until I have 1 Structure point left, and then just step back (They are aware I have the 'Reserve' special rule, and can thus roll a 4/5/6 and get it back if/when destroyed.

Unfortunately for these WAAC lads, they don't communicate well - and one of them proceeds to take off the last SP. So - after my Titan falls to the ground destroyed - next turn - appears a new one(I rolled a 6) - and proceeds to HOSE them with 6 Volcanoes, a Hellstorm and Turbo Laser. Dead dogs.

To top this story off - true - The one who wrote the list - JUST TO BEAT MY EMPIE - comes up when he sees they are about to lose and says "Hey man - throw the game so we can get third prize - you are guaranteed second after all!!"

Suffice to say I tabled them - and lost all respect for the worse of the two WAACS at the same time.

WAAC = "How to lose friends and distance people."

 akira5665 wrote:
I will relay my opinion on this with a little story....

Let me get this straight: you took replacements on an emperor titan, in a 6000 point list, and you're complaining that they took a WAAC list?

Well - seeing as it was only 1 of my two strategic reserve options, and my army consisted of 1 Emperor, 60 Troops and 1 SM captain - yes.

Being Butthurt that I have 1 Unit that cost 4000 isn't WAAC - it is in fact - Tactics.

 akira5665 wrote:
Being Butthurt that I have 1 Unit that cost 4000 isn't WAAC - it is in fact - Tactics.

Sorry, but yes, it is a WAAC list. Everyone who's ever opened the Apocalypse book has figured out that replacements + emperor titan = win. It's one of those well-known things that is ridiculously overpowered, often banned by house rule, and changed in the new Apocalypse rulebook to only work with smaller units. If you're taking something that blatantly overpowered you lose the right to complain that someone took a counter list to deal with it.

OMG - you chime in on a thread, with little or no opinions other than ..

Peregroin - It's a little of both. b/"WAAC" is often the instinctive response by certain people that hate the idea of someone having fun in a way that they don't approve of, /b but there are actual WAAC players out there who will rules lawyer/cheat/etc if it gives them a better chance of winning.

Instead of sitting on a fencepole, waxing lyrical about my one strategic reserve - read the rest of the story. Perhaps you could see the other 90% of relevance regarding WAAC. And - by your own definition YOU are WAAC.

To fit into your idea of reason – I should have used my reserves roll to what – bring 1 Marine back on??

 akira5665 wrote:
Instead of sitting on a fencepole, waxing lyrical about my one strategic reserve - read the rest of the story. Perhaps you could see the other 90% of relevance regarding WAAC. And - by your own definition YOU are WAAC.

I read the story. You brought something completely overpowered, your opponents brought a counter. I fail to see what is WAAC about what they did, unless by "blah/blah" you mean you think that they're making up the part about being inside the void shields instead of just playing by the rules exactly as they were intended?

To fit into your idea of reason – I should have used my reserves roll to what – bring 1 Marine back on??

You should have taken a different asset instead. Or just accepted that if you're going to take one of the most blatantly overpowered things in Apocalypse it's entirely fair for your opponents to bring a counter to it so they have a chance. "Surprise, I have an emperor titan and if you kill it I just bring it back" is just as bad as bringing anti-titan terminators.

Mate - An Emperor Titan is not OP - there are clear rulesets - it is probably just out of your reach/ability, thus your opinion.


By definition - your Sig disagrees with you..

Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, Forge World, and White Dwarf, IS PART OF THE GAME. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

Done with trying to justify why pre-planning an Army, and trying to get a place by cheating is WAAC.

Bye Troll.

He isn't arguing that the Imperator is not part of the game, he's pointing out that it's considered overpowered, especially in the context that you described. A clear ruleset doesn't mean something cannot be considered overpowered, look at the oceans of tears markerlights and heldrakes have generated. Your opponents had two choices. A.) Get wrecked by the Imperator B.) Counter it. I think most people would define that as 'list tailoring' but that's another topic altogether.

On Topic: WAAC players will rules lawyer, slow the gameplay down and argue minuscule details to eke out any slight advantage they can. Often they'll 'forget' certain debilitating rules that affect them while remaining hawkish on anything that will affect you. It's technically not cheating but it's a pretty gray area if the person in question habitually forgets some rules, while demonstrating a clear ability to remember other rules to the letter.

B.) Counter it. I think most people would define that as 'list tailoring' but that's another topic altogether. - List tailoring is so WAAC, it is considered cheating by most. How is that a separate topic?

 akira5665 wrote:
Mate - An Emperor Titan is not OP - there are clear rulesets - it is probably just out of your reach/ability, thus your opinion.

It is part of the game, but you're talking about Apocalypse, where balance is even worse than in normal 40k. So there are two ways of looking at this:

1) You brought something that is part of the game, and so did your opponents. Neither of you can complain.

or

2) Your opponents list tailored, but you brought something blatantly overpowered that would ruin the game if they didn't. You can complain about WAAC lists, but you're just as guilty of it yourself.

Done with trying to justify why pre-planning an Army, and trying to get a place by cheating is WAAC.

Pre-planning an army is no worse than what you attempted to do. You know perfectly well that you were trying to surprise them with something incredibly overpowered and would have tabled them effortlessly with if if they hadn't brought a counter-list for it. It really sounds like you're just mad that you didn't get to win.

@akira

So include it in your definition of WAAC? I don't consider it WAAC or cheating tbh. In a tournament setting a list tailor will eventually come up against the rock to his scissors.

 akira5665 wrote:
B.) Counter it. I think most people would define that as 'list tailoring' but that's another topic altogether. - List tailoring is so WAAC, it is considered cheating by most. How is that a separate topic?

List tailoring is considered TFG behavior in normal 40k, where things are relatively balanced and you can reasonably make a TAC list that can handle most, if not all, potential opponents. Things are completely different in Apocalypse games, especially when you're talking about titans that are thousands of points too cheap because GW wanted to motivate people to build them. GW deliberately wrote the rules for Apocalypse to favor doing "cool" things even if it means that certain combinations are so overpowered they break the game, assuming that players will always only do the cool stuff and have an unwritten rule not to exploit the worst balance issues. Your opponents had two choices:

1) Play a "game" in which they remove models from the table with little hope of ever killing the titan, and even if they succeed it comes right back.

or

2) Bring a dedicated anti-titan list to have a chance of winning.

You're just mad that building a titan doesn't mean you automatically win.

You are amusing me now. A Model I built is WAAC?To use it is WAAC?

I did lose one game that day - to two Redshirts that worked at the store(On their day off) with a very impressive IG/Valkyrie styled army - never bothered me that they beat me.

I think it is you two who are skimming over the details to justify some kind of mindset that having a scratch built Empie is WAAC.

1. They TAILORED their list to beat ME. I built mine with no knowledge of other Armies.

2. They looked up every rule possible before/during and after the Tourney to invalidate the game.

3. They tried to get me to throw the game to get a place/prize..

If focusing on the fact that I had an Imperator, and used one of like 12 rules that you got in original APOC to help me - then yeah - I'm WAAC.

"It really sounds like you're just mad that you didn't get to win." - I did win against them. Perhaps you should read more, and type less? I lost to two great players with an exceptionally well done list. Came second in the Tourney - other than the one game I played with the WAAC guys, it was a great weekend.

Here are a few things written on Capture and Control on this subject.

http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2011/01/for-love-of-game.html
http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2011/01/next-level-gaming-manipulation-of.html
http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2010/12/how-to-deal-with-tfg.html

That being said, I agree with the analogy about shadowsun/farsight and attempting to deny a charge or LoS due to a model wearing a helmet and not having eyes.

It is actually W.A.A.C.A.H., you can figure out what the AH stands for.

I think that most people who have read the previous dozen or so posts would say 'Akira'?

WAAC/powergaming - they do it

Fair/In The Rules - I do it.

Actually. I am bemused. Because what akira did is actually what the first half of the thread calls COMPETITIVE. Create a list using legal rules, there is no rules lawyering or RAW fuckery needed to field that titan with reserves.

WAAC is a mindset and no LIST is WAAC unless the tactics that go with it ARE. Tailoring your list to face something you have preknowledge of facing however is WAAC because the tactic behind it is very clearly NOT to create a strong list that could do wel in a variety of games, but rather to create an unfair advantage against a single enemy you know you will face.. Trying to bend rules and ruleslawyer after a game to cover up your loss is the definition of WAAC. I couldn't win but i'll damn wel make sure you didnt either. And finally when your losing blatantly asking your opponent to throw the fight is beyond all semblance of playing a game for fun. At most tournaments you can't even concede a game to stop people from unjustifyingly placing higher because they were given perfect score they might not have gotten if the game was played out. Asking your opponent to take a loss because it will give you a winners place is un-sportsmanship like to the extreme.

WAAC is like pornography. You can't define it but you know it when you see it.

NickOnwezen wrote:
Actually. I am bemused. Because what akira did is actually what the first half of the thread calls COMPETITIVE. Create a list using legal rules, there is no rules lawyering or RAW fuckery needed to field that titan with reserves.

If you read the whole conversation you will see that Peregrine's issue isn't that Akira did something competitive, it's that he is whining about his opponent's doing the exact same thing as him (bring a competitive choice) and calling them cheaters and WAAC players, just because he is unhappy that they pulled the wool over his eyes when he clearly expected to do better. Simply put, Akira is being a hypocrite and Peregrine called him on it, and it's the right call IMO.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

NickOnwezen wrote:
Actually. I am bemused. Because what akira did is actually what the first half of the thread calls COMPETITIVE. Create a list using legal rules, there is no rules lawyering or RAW fuckery needed to field that titan with reserves.

If you read the whole conversation you will see that Peregrine's issue isn't that Akira did something competitive, it's that he is whining about his opponent's doing the exact same thing as him (bring a competitive choice) and calling them cheaters and WAAC players, just because he is unhappy that they pulled the wool over his eyes when he clearly expected to do better. Simply put, Akira is being a hypocrite and Peregrine called him on it, and it's the right call IMO.

He's not really a hypocrite here. Akira made a competitive list for the apocalypse tournament. His "friends" took list information from a discussion they had and tailored a list to beat it. The problem isn't that they made a competitive list (they should be it is a tournament). It is that they acted shady and betrayed his trust. Even that isn't really WAAC (he really shouldn't have told anybody his TOURNAMENT list), the WAAC part to me is in them trying to convince him to throw the game (they get the W) so that they can sneak into 3rd and a prize slot. And he did do better (2nd is pretty good IMO).

There's this guy at my FLGS that quits by turn two in almost any game you play if there is no way he thinks he can win. He tells me guard can have too many tanks, tomb kings are broken (he plays VC even), and my blood bowl gobbos are OP. I played a game of fantasy with him the other day and by turn two he was telling me that my chariots absolutely had to overrun when I killed his chaff in combat. I was skeptical, as I've only played ~10 games of fantasy, but I deferred to his "experience." He told me to do this because I would overrun into charge range of his zombie horde. During this game, he played until turn six because he was going to win. This kind of guy, while he sucks at tabletop games in general, is WAAC to me.

 ghastli wrote:
There's this guy at my FLGS that quits by turn two in almost any game you play if there is no way he thinks he can win. He tells me guard can have too many tanks, tomb kings are broken (he plays VC even), and my blood bowl gobbos are OP. I played a game of fantasy with him the other day and by turn two he was telling me that my chariots absolutely had to overrun when I killed his chaff in combat. I was skeptical, as I've only played ~10 games of fantasy, but I deferred to his "experience." He told me to do this because I would overrun into charge range of his zombie horde. During this game, he played until turn six because he was going to win. This kind of guy, while he sucks at tabletop games in general, is WAAC to me.

When in doubt check the rulebook. If he says anything just say that you are looking into it to better familiarize yourself and it will only talk a minute or 2. If time is an issue just let it go and check later. In the end, if you really don't like playing with him then just don't.

Like what ironwill said, what i read is that Akira STILL won against a list tailored spccifically to beat him. Infact I didn't see any whining going on and found his post to be a clear and concise diffrence between what is Competitive and WAAC. I simply felt bemused by the fact that people then attacked him for beeing WAAC for bringing the titan in the first place, when in my opinion your unit choices never make you a WAAC player, your actions do.

And what I am observing in the argument between them is that they are misreading eachothers intentions and comming away with a bad opinion of one another which i feel is not justified for either. Perhaps we should call this a classic case of not beeing able to see the intonation in which someone wrote their post in the same way as we can hear it when they speak?

WAAC players have basically made my area a GW ghost town a few years back.

The GW side of the wargaming hobby has always been a relaxing, loose rule based game for people to fart around. Power gaming on the customer's side has ruined GW gaming over the years.

Heck, remember my Dark Eldar thread I made here some years back? I made it clear up front that the point of my project was to play all the units and not be a competitive/waac player so that new dark eldar players can make purchasing decisions based on my experiences. What happened? The waac/competitive nut jobs here jumped in my thread and basically destroyed it. not to mention a certain someone who was jealous of my massive post count and did everything he could to derail the thread to get it locked. Arguing over the definition of a "line" for 4 - 5 pages, lol.

IF YOU ARE COMPETITIVE, BUT kNOW YOU AREN'T WAAC AND CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO THE COMMUNITY, I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT YOU.

If you have the need to defend yourself in response to this post, then you are probably waac. You are the rotten core in the middle or wargaming that is ruining it for everyone else.

Thanks to the reasoned minds that see the real issue, as opposed to the people who think if I build, and use, and Imperator Titan I am WAAC.

"Whining' is a term used by those who have very little to contribute to a discussion, and intersperse the topic with descriptive adjectives they learned in primary school to fortify a weak position.

Luckily - all of the guys who I play with regularly know the truth, and Dakka is just a chatzone.

Haters gunna Hate..

But... Akira,

You got so upset you called Peregrin a troll and said bye...

Then you came right back and said something once he said something.

Then you carried on... As if you wanted to get the last word in...

As if you had to win the convo at all costs...

Hand making a Titan is WAAC behavior. It's not even a real model. You wanted to win... so you built the biggest silliest thing possible, probably at great expense.

My friend uses an Imperitor Titan (hand made), a few reavers and a few warhounds in his Apoc army.

He also uses the 4 FW greater daemons.

He could care less if he wins or if people list tailor. Even the one guy who dumped a fortune on Eldar superheavies to take the titans out.

He just like to build and paint things.

If you want to hand make titans and have a blast with painting a project that size, all the power to you.

But don't complain that your easy win button inspired others to try and destroy it.

"Hand making a Titan is WAAC behavior. It's not even a real model. " Lol.

Last word? x

 DeffDred wrote:
But... Akira,

You got so upset you called Peregrin a troll and said bye...

Then you came right back and said something once he said something.

Then you carried on... As if you wanted to get the last word in...

As if you had to win the convo at all costs...

Hand making a Titan is WAAC behavior. It's not even a real model. You wanted to win... so you built the biggest silliest thing possible, probably at great expense.

My friend uses an Imperitor Titan (hand made), a few reavers and a few warhounds in his Apoc army.

He also uses the 4 FW greater daemons.

He could care less if he wins or if people list tailor. Even the one guy who dumped a fortune on Eldar superheavies to take the titans out.

He just like to build and paint things.

If you want to hand make titans and have a blast with painting a project that size, all the power to you.

But don't complain that your easy win button inspired others to try and destroy it.

That's nonsense. He made a huge model from scratch and that is WAAC behavior? I can't even follow that logic.

Scratch building a large project is one thing.

Scratch building a huge death machine to bring to Apoc game with the intention of crushing thousands of points in a single blast is WAAC.

If you aren't trying to bring the heaviest firepower to bare then why waste time on building something like that. Just bring a real model. Or models.

"Just bring a real model. Or models." I assure you Sir, it is real.

How much can a Koala Bear?

I remember years ago when hand making stuff was revered in the GW side of hobby war gaming. Now it seems to be an insult?

I applaud your wonderful model!!!!

But, we need to be honest with ourselves here. If you want to bring a city leveling model, you are going to have to fight against something that makes the game fun for your opponent too. What he brings has to have the possibility of destroying that titan in combat, or do you expect the game to be you put one model on the table, while your opponent puts 300, just so you can sit back and remove his models wholesale?

I don't think, from this thread, that you nor your opponent's are WAAC players. You made a bad ass model, and your opponents need to have the ability to destroy it.

 akira5665 wrote:
"Just bring a real model. Or models." I assure you Sir, it is real.

How much can a Koala Bear?

Could you perhaps post a link to where on GW or FW I can buy one?

Sure.

www.youseemangryandneedtorelax.com

 DeffDred wrote:

 akira5665 wrote:
"Just bring a real model. Or models." I assure you Sir, it is real.

How much can a Koala Bear?

Could you perhaps post a link to where on GW or FW I can buy one?

Not a very good argument coming from someone with an Ork inspired name, given that Ork players had to scratchbuild or convert many of their models for years before GW finally released all the kits...

Deff dread. Again. Making a titan is not WAAC. Stop beeing the posterboy example of why we even need this thread in the first place. The acronym is self explanatory. Win at ALL costs. Merely bringing a model, no matter how good it is. is in and off itself NOT WAAC. Read his post again if you wil.

He says he spend a year and a half building that titan and took it to the tournament to showcase his hobby project. He didn't build it for the tournament nor did he make it spur of the moment because it was the current flavour of overpowered. Things that you pull out once in a blue moon fore the rare apocalypse games that do come around are the least likely things to be WAAC. Aopocalypse needs lots of space and in accordance planning. They are rare and just because of that your building a model thats a display piece for most of the year. A titan is ALWAYS build as a work of love because even a gakky titan takes time to make. Definiing a huge scratchbuild paperweight that sees action maybe once or twice a year is not fething WAAC no matter how bloody great it is in the game.

On the other hand his opponents are his 'FRIENDS'. Who deliberatedly took the knowledge of what he would bring to bring an army dedicated to sabotage his list and indeed him as a player in the game. Tried to exploit RAW loopholes to make the game go their way when they werent killing him as well as they planned. And then tried to get him to throw the game for a place on the winners podium they didn't deserve as he was winning a game stacked against him. Is just bringing a titan the same as ALL that. Really?

WAAC describes the personality of people who ruin games by the inabillity to have fun unless they are winning by a landslide and will do everything in their power to stack the rules in their favour no matter how morally questionable these actions may be. Please explain to me when and where you spotted akira beeing WAAC in the post he made. Because i don't see it. I just see people throwing the term WAAC around like candy against everything they find to be good. Heldrakes are WAAC, Vendettas are WAAC. Half the Cron DEX is WAAC. Nurgle oblits are WAAC. Wave Serpents are WAAC. Thats why there is even a need for this thread. People call everything WAAC at the slightest provocation and steer the arguments way ofcourse by calling people out on things that are absurd. Just picking a unit. IS. NOT. WAAC. Just making competitive combinations IS. NOT. WAAC. Beeing a poor sportsman that will continually bend the rules to the limits for every small advantage he can scrape together. THIS. IS. WAAC*.

*Insert obligatory punch to the face here.

That Titan is badass.

Sigh. This just keeps going, and people keep missing the point.

Building a titan and using it in the appropriate context (100k point Apocalypse games) is not WAAC.

Bringing a 4000 point titan (that should really cost 10,000+ points) to a 6000 point game and taking replacements to return it if it somehow dies is one of those well-known abusively overpowered things in Apocalypse. Yes, it is part of the rules, but if you do it you forfeit the right to complain when your opponents bring a counter for it so they don't just get wiped off the table.

Bringing a dedicated anti-titan list when your opponent is planning to bring a titan list that you have no chance against otherwise is no worse than bringing the titan in the first place. If the anti-titan list is WAAC then the titan is certainly WAAC.

Peregrine -Sigh. This just keeps going, and people keep missing the point.

Indeed.

NickOnwezen wrote:
He didn't build it for the tournament nor did he make it spur of the moment because it was the current flavour of overpowered.

Yeah, sure, it's entirely coincidence that he took the most overpowered possible asset to go with his titan. He wasn't at all trying to make the game as one-sided as possible...

On the other hand his opponents are his 'FRIENDS'. Who deliberatedly took the knowledge of what he would bring to bring an army dedicated to sabotage his list and indeed him as a player in the game.

You know why? Because emperor titan + replacements in a 6000 point game is so utterly broken that anything less than a dedicated anti-titan list is going to have no chance of competing. What were his friends supposed to do, just accept a one-sided massacre because building a titan entitles you to win effortlessly?

Tried to exploit RAW loopholes to make the game go their way when they werent killing him as well as they planned. And then tried to get him to throw the game for a place on the winners podium they didn't deserve as he was winning a game stacked against him. Is just bringing a titan the same as ALL that. Really?

What RAW loopholes did they try to exploit? Nothing in that story is even close to a RAW exploit.

And yes, they tried to rig the game. Welcome to tournaments where people will rig the game if it's to their mutual benefit. It's just like how in MTG you often see intentional draws because neither player wants to risk their prizes to play the game. This is the only thing that even comes close to WAAC behavior, and even then it's not like it would have cost him anything to accept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 akira5665 wrote:

Peregrine -Sigh. This just keeps going, and people keep missing the point.

Indeed.

Hint: I'm talking about you.

Dude - I DID get beaten by a pair of VERY astute players who smashed me with ease with their IG/Vendetta skills. They used a smokescreen or something like that as a strategic reserve, and hid command squads in Ruins(I couldn't shoot at ruins ) they were brilliant - but not WAAC.

You seem to be looking for a win here - I am looking for one too - picking one of like 12 Strategic assets and using it? Maybe I should have gone for... um tunnels or something?

YES - it is a crazy ability - I have a 50% chance of having it walk on the board. I was playing for prizes and it was a substantial entry fee. NO - I will not take 'tunnels' or something to keep people like you happy. And NO - this does not make me WAAC.

 akira5665 wrote:
YES - it is a crazy ability - I have a 50% chance of having it walk on the board. I was playing for prizes and it was a substantial entry fee. NO - I will not take 'tunnels' or something to keep people like you happy. And NO - this does not make me WAAC.

A 50% chance of having it walk on the board that turn. Then a 50% chance next turn, a 50% chance the turn after that, and a 50% chance until you finally succeed and get it back. Don't misrepresent the abusively powerful combination you took.

And sure, you can declare that it's a competitive event and it's fair to do your best (within the rules) to get the prizes. But then you can't complain that your opponents are WAAC for doing the same.

Ok. Seeing as the points made by others seem to confuse you, I am done beating my head against this brick wall

It seems to me that the issue is that akira5665 is annoyed that his "friends" used the information he gave them as much as he used the information the TO gave him.

Which is to say that each assumed this idea would help them win, at the cost of playing nice.
At all costs. . .perhaps not. But certainly to the point where many folk would disagree with their assumptions.

Akira. First off, that is an amazing titan. Nice job. Second, I think you and peregrine have reached an impasse. You guys should just agree to disagree and end it because this will just continue to escalate. I am sorry your (former I guess) friends were distrustful with you. They made a competitive list (shadiness aside) and so did you. Asking you to throw the match to boost them to 3rd is in poor character is unacceptable under any circumstances.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

This may be the best post I've seen showing the gradients of WAAC, and defining them. Well Done!
I've got no time for WAAC players though I will tolerate competitive players if I know ahead of time what kind of game they want.

As others have mentioned, I would add "List tailoring" in the WAAC section, especially when it happens at the game table just before the game.

A buddy of mine showed up at store for a pick up game a few months back. It was one of his first 40k games (he told the opponent this) and he was eager to get his newly painted Dark Angels on the table. Other guy watches as he unpacks his case, then brings out a pen and proceeds to modfiy his list specifically to counter it. Pulls the necessary models from his large collection and tables my buddy. I had to explain to my buddy later that when that starts to happen it's best to either demand that the opponent play with the list he had originally or not play the game at all against such a d-bag.

Personally I believe (and I try to play against those who believe) that the best way to play is to honestly discuss with your opponent what kind of game you are looking for so that both sides have a good time. There's no shame in turning down a game with someone whose preferred game experience is completely different from yours. It's a big hobby with room for everyone.

 Eilif wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

This may be the best post I've seen showing the gradients of WAAC, and defining them. Well Done!
I've got no time for WAAC players though I will tolerate competitive players if I know ahead of time what kind of game they want.

As others have mentioned, I would add "List tailoring" in the WAAC section, especially when it happens at the game table just before the game.

A buddy of mine showed up at store for a pick up game a few months back. It was one of his first 40k games (he told the opponent this) and he was eager to get his newly painted Dark Angels on the table. Other guy watches as he unpacks his case, then brings out a pen and proceeds to modfiy his list specifically to counter it. Pulls the necessary models from his large collection and tables my buddy. I had to explain to my buddy later that when that starts to happen it's best to either demand that the opponent play with the list he had originally or not play the game at all against such a d-bag.

Personally I believe (and I try to play against those who believe) that the best way to play is to honestly discuss with your opponent what kind of game you are looking for so that both sides have a good time. There's no shame in turning down a game with someone whose preferred game experience is completely different from yours. It's a big hobby with room for everyone.

I like that definition too. I agree with you. Play with those who want a similar experience as you and let others (like WAACs) play against each other.

 Eilif wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

This may be the best post I've seen showing the gradients of WAAC, and defining them. Well Done!
I've got no time for WAAC players though I will tolerate competitive players if I know ahead of time what kind of game they want.

As others have mentioned, I would add "List tailoring" in the WAAC section, especially when it happens at the game table just before the game.

A buddy of mine showed up at store for a pick up game a few months back. It was one of his first 40k games (he told the opponent this) and he was eager to get his newly painted Dark Angels on the table. Other guy watches as he unpacks his case, then brings out a pen and proceeds to modfiy his list specifically to counter it. Pulls the necessary models from his large collection and tables my buddy. I had to explain to my buddy later that when that starts to happen it's best to either demand that the opponent play with the list he had originally or not play the game at all against such a d-bag.

Personally I believe (and I try to play against those who believe) that the best way to play is to honestly discuss with your opponent what kind of game you are looking for so that both sides have a good time. There's no shame in turning down a game with someone whose preferred game experience is completely different from yours. It's a big hobby with room for everyone.

List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

WAAC is less applicable when the entire game is based upon the idea that the game is simply won or lost.

People aiming to win have a goal that is often enough against the goal of the game itself.
Asking people to play that game is unfair.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 akira5665 wrote:
"Just bring a real model. Or models." I assure you Sir, it is real.

How much can a Koala Bear?

Could you perhaps post a link to where on GW or FW I can buy one?

Not a very good argument coming from someone with an Ork inspired name, given that Ork players had to scratchbuild or convert many of their models for years before GW finally released all the kits...

And which years are you referring to?

IIRC Orks have always had every model in their list (after 2nd) except a battlewagon which FW produced not long after.

Chaos needed its Defiler... Tyranids needed a few bugs a while back. But I'm really drawing a blank on missing Ork models in 3rd and 4th...

Yup just checked... the only thing missing at the time was a battlewagon.

And screen names are a horrible way to judge people. Do you think Akira had mind over matter?

 TheCadreofFi'rios wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Some stuff

Some more stuff (thanks btw!)

List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

I have several standard lists that I keep packed with my stuff for various points levels and a couple of variant builds. I when I go to the FLGS or to my buddy's place to play, I usually have a specific list with whatever ideas I'm trying out at that time that I want to play and that's what I go to first. The only time I change from that list is if I feel that it will be an utterly unfair list for my opponent (meaning they have little chance of overcoming it), they really need/want to play a different points level, or they are just really against playing that kind of list (I play flyer heavy Necrons most of the time, and I understand a lot of people hate playing against them).

What I won't do is change my list after seeing what my opponent is bringing to give me an advantage. That is list tailoring imo. If I'm going to be a serious underdog, I'm going to play it out. Part of it is it's just being a good sport. Part of it is if I'm playing a tournament, I don't have the opportunity to change my list to give me better odds. Playing the game out to see what I should change, why exactly I need to change it, to what degree I really need to make a change, and what I can do differently during the game to adapt makes me a better player in the long run.

I'm more surprised by this thread at the existence of Competitive Apocalypse Tournaments. It seems to defeat the point of Apocalypse (and is eminently unsuited for the game format anyway, with the myriad of ways to shank your opponent).

Yeah, aside from the potential game lengths, that just seems like a recipe for discord and conflict, and not the good 'happening on the table kind.' How many rounds would you want something like that to go through in a day?

I will say that it seems strange that an ardent FW supporter, in terms of using it in tournies, is mad at another person due to the fact that FW under costed a model in a game with potentially unlimited points available to each side. How is it the players fault that the rules evaluate something at X cost? All the player can do is pay the points and move on.
Again how is it the player's fault that he uses a "well known" tactic that is viewed as OP, but enitirely legal? Does this make everyone who uses the netlist of the month also WAAC?
Arguing OP in an apocalypse tourney is pointless and off topic it doesn't matter how many points are on the table its what the player does both with his models and to his opponent that would label him WAAC.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. This just keeps going, and people keep missing the point.

Building a titan and using it in the appropriate context (100k point Apocalypse games) is not WAAC.

Bringing a 4000 point titan (that should really cost 10,000+ points) to a 6000 point game and taking replacements to return it if it somehow dies is one of those well-known abusively overpowered things in Apocalypse. Yes, it is part of the rules, but if you do it you forfeit the right to complain when your opponents bring a counter for it so they don't just get wiped off the table.

Bringing a dedicated anti-titan list when your opponent is planning to bring a titan list that you have no chance against otherwise is no worse than bringing the titan in the first place. If the anti-titan list is WAAC then the titan is certainly WAAC.

Can you really not draw a line between bringing a cheesy list because your opponent is bringing a cheesy list and tailoring a list specifically to screw your opponent?

 Shandara wrote:
I'm more surprised by this thread at the existence of Competitive Apocalypse Tournaments. It seems to defeat the point of Apocalypse (and is eminently unsuited for the game format anyway, with the myriad of ways to shank your opponent).

I said the same thing about competitive Warhammer 40k about 12 years ago

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

 TheCadreofFi'rios wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Some stuff

Some more stuff (thanks btw!)

List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

I have several standard lists that I keep packed with my stuff for various points levels and a couple of variant builds. I when I go to the FLGS or to my buddy's place to play, I usually have a specific list with whatever ideas I'm trying out at that time that I want to play and that's what I go to first. The only time I change from that list is if I feel that it will be an utterly unfair list for my opponent (meaning they have little chance of overcoming it), they really need/want to play a different points level, or they are just really against playing that kind of list (I play flyer heavy Necrons most of the time, and I understand a lot of people hate playing against them).

What I won't do is change my list after seeing what my opponent is bringing to give me an advantage. That is list tailoring imo. If I'm going to be a serious underdog, I'm going to play it out. Part of it is it's just being a good sport. Part of it is if I'm playing a tournament, I don't have the opportunity to change my list to give me better odds. Playing the game out to see what I should change, why exactly I need to change it, to what degree I really need to make a change, and what I can do differently during the game to adapt makes me a better player in the long run.

Yes I agree with that. I don't list tailor after I see my opponents full army. However I believe in scouting a player's army in order to give them a good game. Namely this guy at a local store that I want to play that has a hell turkey and a bunch of demonforges. Yes I know what is in some of his list but not exactly everything.

Competitive gamer - brings counters to units in case units show up, knows the rules, and uses them in a fair context. Also can offer you advice.

WAAC - Uses pre-edition rules/differing rules to the book. Changes weapons in the heat of the game according to target. Doesn't mark which models are what. Borderline cheats until either he gets his own way, or you tire of trying to correct him.

 Peregrine wrote:
Competitive = tries hard to win within the rules. Optimized lists with all the best units, ignoring fluff if it improves their chances of winning, etc. The game is about competition, a test of skill where the best player wins.

WAAC = win at ALL costs. Cheating, rules lawyering, abusing every RAW issue they can find that favors their army, etc. The game is all about winning, no matter what it takes.

The competitive player uses Shadowsun in a Farsight bomb army because a 2+ cover save on the Farsight bomb is great. The WAAC player does the same thing and then tells you that your models can't charge the Farsight bomb because they're wearing helmets and you have to draw LOS from their eyes.

THIS!

I look at it this way: If you do not follow the rules it is no longer a game, it is fiction at the expense of your "opponent" who still thinks they are playing a game.
One is trying to beat the "intellect" of their opponent while the other is trying to win by "coercion or deceit" outside of game rules.

Some of WAAC is contextual. In a tournament, sure, I guess if you want to bring one of the powerful combos that's up to you. It may not be particularly fun to play against for people that are there just to cruise the middle/bottom tables, roll some dice, and socialize, but it's hardly behavior that I think is reasonable to frown upon. Bringing that super combo to a random pick-up game... that might be pushing it a bit. Bringing it against someone that you know it will crush, and your opponent isn't looking for the challenge? Yeah... it may or may not be WAAC, but it is DBag.

Same list, same person, same attitude, but change the context around a little bit and I think you can have someone shift from being competitive to being WAAC.

TheCadreofFi'rios wrote:
List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

I say once you arrive at the club, if you are playing someone who has only brought one list, ANY list tailoring is WAAC behavior. They brought one list and as soon as you change your list to adjust to their army, you are giving yourself an advantage that they don't have, and venturing into WAAC territory. If you have a couple lists and you grab one when when you hear what army they've brought, it's a grey area, and no one can stop you, just realize you've already given yourself an advantage they don't have.

If you change lists or tailor a list once you see what minis they've brought, you are unequivocally WAAC'ing and even bordering on cheating.

List Tailoring is of course acceptable when two players who have agreed on a very competitive game ahead of time tailor their armies to beat each other.

Shandara wrote:I'm more surprised by this thread at the existence of Competitive Apocalypse Tournaments. It seems to defeat the point of Apocalypse (and is eminently unsuited for the game format anyway, with the myriad of ways to shank your opponent).

I've seen this at a few places applied to standard level games. It seems to mean that you can bring whatever you want and might be a way to build a tournament scene where players are scarce or new and don't have completely legal armies.

Or it could just be a bad idea...

I normally bring a few lists with me of various points, what i do though is after agreeing the points total we want to play i will get out all of my lists and let me opponent choose which they want to play against.

Once i have played a person a number of times i will use my standard list which does not change depending on opponenet.

Peregroin - And screen names are a horrible way to judge people. Do you think Akira had mind over matter?

Yep, no matter what, I don't mind

cammy wrote:
I normally bring a few lists with me of various points, what i do though is after agreeing the points total we want to play i will get out all of my lists and let me opponent choose which they want to play against.

Once i have played a person a number of times i will use my standard list which does not change depending on opponenet.

This is a really great way to play. Obviously you are someone who wants the opponent to have as good a time as yourself.

I usually only bring one list per force, but I always try to have an extra copy on hand to give to my opponent.

Wait wait wait, are there actually people in this thread giving someone gak for going through the effort to make a bad ass Imperator Titan, and actually want to use it?

 Bookwrack wrote:
Wait wait wait, are there actually people in this thread giving someone gak for going through the effort to make a bad ass Imperator Titan, and actually want to use it?

That's what I was wondering, having just wandered in. Are they angry that it's not an official model? because I would love it for someone to point me to where GW sells Imperator Titans (though the price would probably physically hurt, could you imagine?)

But yeah, that's a sweet titan.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I will say that it seems strange that an ardent FW supporter, in terms of using it in tournies, is mad at another person due to the fact that FW under costed a model in a game with potentially unlimited points available to each side. How is it the players fault that the rules evaluate something at X cost? All the player can do is pay the points and move on.
Again how is it the player's fault that he uses a "well known" tactic that is viewed as OP, but enitirely legal? Does this make everyone who uses the netlist of the month also WAAC?
Arguing OP in an apocalypse tourney is pointless and off topic it doesn't matter how many points are on the table its what the player does both with his models and to his opponent that would label him WAAC.

Forgeworld had nothing to do with the Imperator Titan Rules. That was a GW web released data sheet.

You're right. I forgot that Apoc is an actual GW release even though FW does make most of its models for the Apoc game.
The point being that peregrine is/was complaining that the titan is severly underpointed and implied that therefore it should be banned from play. Peregrine is vociferous that all models made by GW/FW should be able to be played RAW or else your just not playing by the rules. For him to complain that using an official GW model when used with another GW rule is broken and therefore should be disallowed is, at best, laughable.

 azreal13 wrote:
Competitive player's response if you ask if you can take back a move, or do something you should have done earlier in the turn:
"Sure mate, no problem"
Then he crushes you.

WAAC player's response to the same question "No, sorry"
Then he crushes you.

This has nothing at all to do with what you said right after it:

Basically it all boils down to attitude, a "competitive" player can roflstomp you, you'll shake his hand, and start thinking what you could have done better, different or changes you could make to your list.

If a WAAC player does the same, you'll feel vaguely violated and start thinking how you can avoid playing him again in the future.

A person can have a great attitude and play competitively and all that good stuff and still not want to play a game where people are reversing time to reset mistakes. Allowing take backs isn't likely something a WAAC player would do, but not allowing take backs doesn't make someone a WAAC player.

The attitude thing was on the right track, but the take backs example doesn't illustrate your point.

 Eilif wrote:
Personally I believe (and I try to play against those who believe) that the best way to play is to honestly discuss with your opponent what kind of game you are looking for so that both sides have a good time. There's no shame in turning down a game with someone whose preferred game experience is completely different from yours. It's a big hobby with room for everyone.

This X over 9,000!

You would be surprised how controversial it can be to decline a game with someone.

 Bookwrack wrote:
Wait wait wait, are there actually people in this thread giving someone gak for going through the effort to make a bad ass Imperator Titan, and actually want to use it?

Yeah, that titan was pretty awesome. I would want to field in my apocalypse games if I made it.

Tannhauser42 wrote:

DeffDred wrote:

akira5665 wrote:
"Just bring a real model. Or models." I assure you Sir, it is real.

How much can a Koala Bear?


Could you perhaps post a link to where on GW or FW I can buy one?



Not a very good argument coming from someone with an Ork inspired name, given that Ork players had to scratchbuild or convert many of their models for years before GW finally released all the kits...



And which years are you referring to?

IIRC Orks have always had every model in their list (after 2nd) except a battlewagon which FW produced not long after.

Chaos needed its Defiler... Tyranids needed a few bugs a while back. But I'm really drawing a blank on missing Ork models in 3rd and 4th...

Yup just checked... the only thing missing at the time was a battlewagon.

And screen names are a horrible way to judge people. Do you think Akira had mind over matter?

actually...going through the third ed book in order the missing units are/were:

painboss(non character)
cyborks
komandos
Flashgitz
lootas
and the battle wagon

all but the last one had to be made from the boys box which didn't even have a power-klaw in it

also, until recently all of the vehicles were from gorkamorka.

-peace,
G

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The point being that peregrine is/was complaining that the titan is severly underpointed and implied that therefore it should be banned from play.

No I'm not. Why is it so hard to read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote?

Is the titan part of the game? Yes.

Is the titan, especially with the replacements asset, incredibly overpowered in a 6000 point game? Yes.

Conclusion: you can bring it, but you forfeit your right to complain if your opponent brings an anti-titan list instead of just letting themselves get tabled so you can have "fun". My problem is not that they brought the titan, it's that they brought it while simultaneously calling their opponents WAAC for bringing a counter list. You can't have it both ways, if bringing the counter list is WAAC by your standards then bringing the titan in the first place is certainly WAAC.

And again you misinterpreted his complaint. It wasn't that they brought a list that could counter a titan. It was that his opponents brought a list to specifically counter his titan. In other words they wouldn't have brought the list they did except for the fact that they knew the titan was coming.

Indeed Leo_the_Rat - was the main point. That, and the request to throw the battle for place rigging.

 akira5665 wrote:

1. They TAILORED their list to beat ME. I built mine with no knowledge of other Armies.

I was going to just sit back and leave this thread alone until I read THIS.....It's as if you imply that it took some epic thought process or tactical savvy to bring that thing to an APOC game. Its not like you drafted some really well thought out, all comers, I have an answer for everything list. You took a severely undercosted model and gave it broken asset. The fact that the TO even allowed this garbage amazes me. Even before the revamp of the rules addressed this issue, most sensible players were already restricting that asset to non-superheavy models.

Good job on the model though....at least it doesnt look like a bunch of paper towel rolls and some shoe boxes

Ok. So I wasn't a Tactical genius. I didn't take an asset that you would be happy with. As for garbage, it seems you are easily amazed. The point was the WAAC. But you keep going ahead spouting this opinion, that has well and truly been hashed out.

And as many have already HASHED out, you appear to be just as much a WAAC as the people you were complaining about....were they right for asking you to "throw" the game? Asking for a concession in tournament play is something that goes on in almost every type of competitive play (look at MTG where a draw with a higher seed can guarantee a trip to top 16 or what have you). As far as them then trying to get the game invalidated...yeah I will agree with you that is D-bag move if it happened. They brought a list specif to beat your pain bringer?? Take that as a learning lesson, keep your mouth shut about what you plan on taking to a tourney. I would bet you were so proud of your epic killing machine that you couldnt help going on about how it was going to stomp everyone....hell for that matter just run disinformation operations. Tell them all one thing and then bring something else entirely like seeding swarm (okay not the best idea for comp play but you get the point). The thing here is you started a thread to rant (just a little, not a lot) about what you thought were WAAC players, but have become very defensive when most people are looking at you with the same raised eyebrow. Probably should take a hard look in the mirror on this one.

You don't read or absorb much do you?
A. I didn't start this thread.
B. MTG - really? Comparing Apocalypse? Absurd.
C.Putting words in my mouth re Stomping opponents.

Disinformation is the purvey of Military intelligence, a greater Oxymoron you will not find. Unless of course, you look hard into a Mirror..

XX

 quickfuze wrote:
And as many have already HASHED out, you appear to be just as much a WAAC as the people you were complaining about....were they right for asking you to "throw" the game? Asking for a concession in tournament play is something that goes on in almost every type of competitive play (look at MTG where a draw with a higher seed can guarantee a trip to top 16 or what have you). As far as them then trying to get the game invalidated...yeah I will agree with you that is D-bag move if it happened. They brought a list specif to beat your pain bringer?? Take that as a learning lesson, keep your mouth shut about what you plan on taking to a tourney. I would bet you were so proud of your epic killing machine that you couldnt help going on about how it was going to stomp everyone....hell for that matter just run disinformation operations. Tell them all one thing and then bring something else entirely like seeding swarm (okay not the best idea for comp play but you get the point). The thing here is you started a thread to rant (just a little, not a lot) about what you thought were WAAC players, but have become very defensive when most people are looking at you with the same raised eyebrow. Probably should take a hard look in the mirror on this one.

The problem is though, that bringing a Titan just is not WAAC. Bringing a Rending pony. now thats WAAC! Its not finding the best model with the best rules and the most amazing combinations within the rules that makes you WAAC. Its when instead of reading the rules to see if you can do something. Its reading the rules to see if they forget to forbid something that makes you WAAC. Its the attitude that aslong as I win feth everyone elses fun. Bringing a Titan to Apocalypse is pretty much expected of anyone who has one. And if he put down a titan made out of toilet paper rolls that looks like it was made in an afternoon just because it has overpowered rules then maybe i would agree. If he made a Titan speccificly to stomp a tournament then MAYBE. But he made something that you usually never get to use, took an opportunity to show of his cool model which LIKELY he showed of to people because he was proud of actually FINISHING the bloody thing. Which in itself is a miracle when you can count the number of finished emperor titans posted on this board on one hand. He went to a tournament to showcase his work NOT to completely destroy his opposition as some of you seem to be implying.

As stated before taking an anti titan list to APOC is not WAAC either. You expect titans to show up. Tailoring a list to counter one speccific titan you were sure was comming however is like the guy who sits down across the table from you after having seen the armies that came to the tournamet, takes out a pen and modifies his list right before the first game starts so he has a better shot at it. Heck isn't this behavior why tournaments started giving points for army lists sent in in advance? Its just not okay to bring 3000 points to a table when your playing a game of 1500 points and then write the list then and there to crush your opponents list after having seen it. THIS is essentially what happened here.

 quickfuze wrote:
"Asking for a concession in tournament play is something that goes on in almost every type of competitive play (look at MTG where a draw with a higher seed can guarantee a trip to top 16 or what have you)"

Everyone does it so that doesn't make it WAAC is kind of a weak argument because asking your opponent to take a dive to get a better position is called rigging a fight. A generally despised, unsportsman like behavior that fits the acronym WAAC to an absolute W.A.A. and C. (Cus there is no T in WAAC)

This thread it full of troll win!

NickOnwezen wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
And as many have already HASHED out, you appear to be just as much a WAAC as the people you were complaining about....were they right for asking you to "throw" the game? Asking for a concession in tournament play is something that goes on in almost every type of competitive play (look at MTG where a draw with a higher seed can guarantee a trip to top 16 or what have you). As far as them then trying to get the game invalidated...yeah I will agree with you that is D-bag move if it happened. They brought a list specif to beat your pain bringer?? Take that as a learning lesson, keep your mouth shut about what you plan on taking to a tourney. I would bet you were so proud of your epic killing machine that you couldnt help going on about how it was going to stomp everyone....hell for that matter just run disinformation operations. Tell them all one thing and then bring something else entirely like seeding swarm (okay not the best idea for comp play but you get the point). The thing here is you started a thread to rant (just a little, not a lot) about what you thought were WAAC players, but have become very defensive when most people are looking at you with the same raised eyebrow. Probably should take a hard look in the mirror on this one.

The problem is though, that bringing a Titan just is not WAAC. Bringing a Rending pony. now thats WAAC! Its not finding the best model with the best rules and the most amazing combinations within the rules that makes you WAAC. Its when instead of reading the rules to see if you can do something. Its reading the rules to see if they forget to forbid something that makes you WAAC. Its the attitude that aslong as I win feth everyone elses fun. Bringing a Titan to Apocalypse is pretty much expected of anyone who has one. And if he put down a titan made out of toilet paper rolls that looks like it was made in an afternoon just because it has overpowered rules then maybe i would agree. If he made a Titan speccificly to stomp a tournament then MAYBE. But he made something that you usually never get to use, took an opportunity to show of his cool model which LIKELY he showed of to people because he was proud of actually FINISHING the bloody thing. Which in itself is a miracle when you can count the number of finished emperor titans posted on this board on one hand. He went to a tournament to showcase his work NOT to completely destroy his opposition as some of you seem to be implying.

As stated before taking an anti titan list to APOC is not WAAC either. You expect titans to show up. Tailoring a list to counter one speccific titan you were sure was comming however is like the guy who sits down across the table from you after having seen the armies that came to the tournamet, takes out a pen and modifies his list right before the first game starts so he has a better shot at it. Heck isn't this behavior why tournaments started giving points for army lists sent in in advance? Its just not okay to bring 3000 points to a table when your playing a game of 1500 points and then write the list then and there to crush your opponents list after having seen it. THIS is essentially what happened here.

 quickfuze wrote:
"Asking for a concession in tournament play is something that goes on in almost every type of competitive play (look at MTG where a draw with a higher seed can guarantee a trip to top 16 or what have you)"

Everyone does it so that doesn't make it WAAC is kind of a weak argument because asking your opponent to take a dive to get a better position is called rigging a fight. A generally despised, unsportsman like behavior that fits the acronym WAAC to an absolute W.A.A. and C. (Cus there is no T in WAAC)

Exalted. That is the 2nd time I have seen a shoulder shrug reaction to the "taking a dive" question. It is a disgusting practice, and shows a general lack of integrity (on the person asking and anyone that goes along with it). It definitely fits the WAAC well.