One that does not blur the lines between competitive play and "all the costs".

Unfortunately, there's more to it than simply what list you bring, a lot of it, imo comes down to personality and attitude while playing. Both of those things cannot simply be quantified with a number or clear black and white distinction.

Even more, a great deal depends on your context and the setting you're playing in. If I think someone is a WAAC jerk, and then they say "but the internet said I'm not" I'm NOT going to change my opinion on them.

Why do you need such a clear definition?

Because a word without a clear definition is pointless and serves to bundle together the right and the wrong by virtue of having a blurred meaning.

As that word is often used to call forum member names and it's even got its own dictionary entry, it would make sense to have it defined.

But you cannot define it exactly, as an exact definition for the term does nothing. What is WAAC in one location may not be in another.

Do you mean you use a word which you acknowledge to have a meaning that can be stretched by any of its users ?

It is hardly unique. Words and their meanings get stretched all over the place, and not just on Dakka. Interpretation of the terms requires that you look into the situation and fully understand the context from which it came.

morgoth wrote:
Do you mean you use a word which you acknowledge to have a meaning that can be stretched by any of its users ?

Looking up 'context' in the dictionary might help you out.

morgoth wrote:
Because a word without a clear definition is pointless and serves to bundle together the right and the wrong by virtue of having a blurred meaning.

The problem (here, at least) is that 'right' and 'wrong' are just as blurred and ill-defined as 'WAAC' is.

morgoth wrote:
Do you mean you use a word which you acknowledge to have a meaning that can be stretched by any of its users ?

Welcome to how English works.

English is the very definition of a fluid, living language. Users are constantly altering definitions and inventing new words.

It is not a word per se. It is Acronym. It stands for Win At All Costs. That is the definition and it is self definitive.

The definition is impossible because different terms mean different things to different people. The best IMO definition is that it's someone who plays only to win and eschews their own fun and the fun of others in the pursuit of winning.

To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more. Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

It doesn't matter if one agrees with this or not, my point is that (in my opinion) WAAC is also a term that covers a person who reads rules for anything they can exploit for an advantage their opponent isn't prepared for.

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more.

Do you also consider it WAAC to roll a 3+ armor save for your tactical marine when hit by a lasgun? Because that's the same level of rule "ambiguity" that there was with vehicles firing gun emplacements before the rules were changed. And it's very easy to explain fluff-wise: the driver gets out of the vehicle and fires the gun, the gun has a remote control system that the vehicle is using, etc.

Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

That's not WAAC, it's just GW failing to write functioning rules. Remember that there is a clear precedent for "weird" effects not granting cover saves: markerlights. And it uses the exact same "it's not a wound or glance/pen, therefore no saves" argument. So why is one WAAC and the other is just how the game works?

One of the problems with defining it is how much emphasis you put on the “all” in “win at all costs” Are you cheating, or just pushing the grey areas to your advantage? Using out-of-game psychological tricks to screw with your opponent? Or just being abrasive, or disregarding the fluff in your codex to build an effective list?

WAAC is a term that gets tossed around a lot. It means different things to different people. If you asked both my mother-in-law and my 8 year old son to define the word “Rude” and what behavior it covers, you’d get widely divergent answers. WAAC is very similar.

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more. Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

It doesn't matter if one agrees with this or not, my point is that (in my opinion) WAAC is also a term that covers a person who reads rules for anything they can exploit for an advantage their opponent isn't prepared for.

Pretty much this in my opinion.

I'd like to add that it's not an army that makes someone WAAC, it's the attitude behind someone. I think someone could have a really competitive list (say AV13 Necrons or something like that) yet if they abide by all the rules and are generally nice to play against that makes them competitive whereas WAAC starts to delve into the realm of having one set of rules for your opponent and one set of rules for yourself (basically, exploiting rules and situations to your advantage while not allowing your opponent to do the same, giving you an unfair advantage). It could also be interpreted playing things as RAW but not RAI (Death Ray firing into CC, Revenent Titan on Skyshieild Landing Pad, etc).

This is my opinion on it - as someone said it's a very blurry line so definitions will be different for different people.

Here's mine:

For this group of players, success is a binary state, and that success is determined by exactly one thing - winning. The point of the game, possibly the ONLY point of the game is to win it. It is easy for the other player groups to revile this group because it produces behavior antithetical to their way of playing, but such behavior is perfectly congruent with the way the game is supposed to be played for these players. They will rules lawyer to advantage because it can help them win, and if you aren't able to argue well enough why my interpretation of the rules is wrong, then you SHOULD lose. Likewise, if I bring the strongest list in the game, and you don't, you should lose more often, and complaining about my list is just a cover-up for the fact that you brought a weaker list.

Winners have a strange relationship with dice - they don't want the game to be based on the luck of the dice, because they don't want to lose just because someone got lucky (or they got unlucky), but at the same time want to be able to come back from behind with a little luck if it means they can pull out a win. Also, this group doesn't want there to be serious game balance. Part of the fun is to come up with stronger and stronger combinations of units to give them that edge. If every army were roughly as powerful, then you wouldn't get to use your peak brainpower to come up with secret combinations that others didn't know about that would allow you to crush your opponents. List building is a skill, after all, and not everyone is as skilled as others.

It is, in a way, the purest, most black and white way to look at the game. People's complaints about pretty much anything tend to be irrelevant. Who cares if I use a spam list if it gets me the win? Why are you letting fluff get in the way of you winning? I'll take the victory, but I'll also likely think less of you for not being as clever as me, or not "wanting" it as much.

And a comparison to other types.

To me WAAC is actively trying to win at the cost of a game's integrity. This namely is cheating (both hard and soft forms) as this disregards their opponent and the game completely all just so that they can say "I win". As others have said ultimately a WAAC player just plays with an attitude that ruins the game for their opponent regardless of what kind of player they are (even competitive players).

A lot of the time though (on forums at least) people attribute WAAC to arguing RAW which I find wrong. They slander the RAW arguer with WAAC player trying to gain an unfair advantage and ignoring "obvious" RAI. I find this wrong for many reasons namely that it assumes the RAW side plays that army or would actually play those rules IRL when neither has to be true to read the rulebook. But also RAI is very subjective as there so no actual way to know what GW's intentions are (since they don't just say them) and it's very easy to make an argument for or against any RAI as a result. So it annoys me to no end when some people get extremely arrogant and rude just because they think they are correct on such a subjective matter.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more.

Do you also consider it WAAC to roll a 3+ armor save for your tactical marine when hit by a lasgun? Because that's the same level of rule "ambiguity" that there was with vehicles firing gun emplacements before the rules were changed. And it's very easy to explain fluff-wise: the driver gets out of the vehicle and fires the gun, the gun has a remote control system that the vehicle is using, etc.

Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

That's not WAAC, it's just GW failing to write functioning rules. Remember that there is a clear precedent for "weird" effects not granting cover saves: markerlights. And it uses the exact same "it's not a wound or glance/pen, therefore no saves" argument. So why is one WAAC and the other is just how the game works?

I agree with this actually. You might be able to wiggle and call it a WAAC player though if their opponent disagreed and then offered to 4+ it, but the other player still refused to change their stance without giving a proper explanation (unlike Peregrine here).

IMHO, WAAC is covers a few categories, all in the name of winning: unsportsmanlike and selfish conduct, uber-competitive lists in any sort of atmosphere (eg, casual, friendly setting), cheating, ignoring RAI on grey areas when it's in their favour and without consulting their opponent ("well the Pyrovore was clearly intended to hit every model on the board!"), etc. The important thing is that they are someone who focuses so much on winning that they aren't any fun to play against.

EDIT: Oh and I should also add that if they start losing they get really angry about it and generally start to whine, annoying their opponent or making them feel bad for being in a better position.

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more. Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

It doesn't matter if one agrees with this or not, my point is that (in my opinion) WAAC is also a term that covers a person who reads rules for anything they can exploit for an advantage their opponent isn't prepared for.

Just because somebody argues something, doesn't mean they play it that way.

Prior to 7th edition, I would've argued against eye-less models trying to draw LOS. Doesn't mean I would play it that way.

As an aside, this brings up something that still bothers me when playing Warmachine - WM/H has no real concept of "RAI", if the rule says you can do X, then you can do X. My mind is clouded by the 40k nomenclature because some tricks/combos in WM/H feels like they would be called "WAAC", "beardy" or outright cheating in 40k because they seem to use dubious interpretations of the rules, but that is not the case. The closest thing to WAAC in WM/H would be some kind of cheating involving premeasuring, like knowing the distance to a particular terrain piece and using that to get an unfair advantage.

I think that "WAAC" is more prevalent in 40k due to the rules style and the fact that the rules aren't clear, so you have RAI vs. RAW debates constantly and it's easy to be labeled a WAAC player (or TFG, etc.) for certain rules interpretations. That doesn't happen in most other games because the rules are clear.

 Ailaros wrote:
Here's mine:

For this group of players, success is a binary state, and that success is determined by exactly one thing - winning. The point of the game, possibly the ONLY point of the game is to win it. It is easy for the other player groups to revile this group because it produces behavior antithetical to their way of playing, but such behavior is perfectly congruent with the way the game is supposed to be played for these players. They will rules lawyer to advantage because it can help them win, and if you aren't able to argue well enough why my interpretation of the rules is wrong, then you SHOULD lose. Likewise, if I bring the strongest list in the game, and you don't, you should lose more often, and complaining about my list is just a cover-up for the fact that you brought a weaker list.

Winners have a strange relationship with dice - they don't want the game to be based on the luck of the dice, because they don't want to lose just because someone got lucky (or they got unlucky), but at the same time want to be able to come back from behind with a little luck if it means they can pull out a win. Also, this group doesn't want there to be serious game balance. Part of the fun is to come up with stronger and stronger combinations of units to give them that edge. If every army were roughly as powerful, then you wouldn't get to use your peak brainpower to come up with secret combinations that others didn't know about that would allow you to crush your opponents. List building is a skill, after all, and not everyone is as skilled as others.

It is, in a way, the purest, most black and white way to look at the game. People's complaints about pretty much anything tend to be irrelevant. Who cares if I use a spam list if it gets me the win? Why are you letting fluff get in the way of you winning? I'll take the victory, but I'll also likely think less of you for not being as clever as me, or not "wanting" it as much.

And a comparison to other types.

I agree with this 100%. Especially the issue with dice - you'll have these guys who bitch and complain about poor rolls, but it's not as if they acknowledge the times that they make 15 5+ saves in a row.

If 7th edition has done anything right, it's giving this type of player more frowny faces.

Loopholes that are not actually intended by the writers exist and WAAC players will exploit them. it happens. Just dont play those people.
Again, WAAC is self explanatory.

Didnt we go through this like a month ago?

a WAAC is one who is willing to WIN AT ALL COST

All Costs

Meaning a WAAC will not be above losing his own life to win a game
simple as that so can we move on?

I don't consider cheating as WAAC, because who wins by cheating is a insufferable bastard, not an over-competitive player.

A WAAC player is someone who will try to bend every aspect of the rules to his benefit, but still inside the rules. Murky rules are WAAC treasures, and he'll argue about them to exhaustion until getting his side of the argument.

There is a vast difference between wanting to win, and winning at all costs. Face it, this game has winners and losers and some of the hardest opponents I know are excellent guys to play against. They bring the pain but the are not WAACos.

A WAAC player might try other things to win, being it bending rules or other nonsense. They won't let you redo an error but want you to let them take a move back. They might not correct you if you are playing a rule slightly wrong so long as it benefits them. They might distract you outside of the game, making snide comments or just being annoying. To them its a mental battle as well as a physical one.

At least that's my view anyway.

I admit, I can get rather angry when playing this game. It happens. But I really only become a bad sport when the dice are against me at every turn, and I'm just getting destroyed with no hope of doing anything back. That rarely happens. But sure, if you wanna consider me a WAAC player, go ahead. I've lost a good number of games, some of which I went down fighting, and just barely lost, but both of us had a great time doing so.

However, I will outright refuse a game that I know I have little chance of ever winning. For example, I have a Grey Knight friend that wanted to play me. I brought my Tyranids. He uses a big blob of Paladins with 2 Dreadknights. I refuse to play against that, mainly because there's little I would be able to do to it. am I WAAC? Meh, you tell me. All in all, I just don't like feeling as if I don't have a chance, whether it's from the start or later during the game.

I would really, REALLY, REEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAALLLY love it if the community just stopped using these terms completely. TFG and WAAC. I hate these terms. They're stupid tags with no real definition.

Whenever I see either used I just read it as "something I don't like and instead of articulating it I'll just put a demeaning label on it."

These sorts of terms do not make the community a better place. There is sufficient words in the English language that we can describe things properly instead of using ill-defined terms that are rarely used beyond a thinly veiled insult.

To me it is a combination of factors and they don't necessarily all have to be present, they aren't all necessarily bad and for some whether they are bad or not depends on the context.

1. Out right cheating by moving extra distance, fixing dice rolls, picking up failed rolls before the opponent can see they are failures, etc.

2. Interpreting any ambiguity in your favor and against your opponent and not being consistent in this. i.e. treating a rule or principle one way one moment then flipping it the next.

2a. Hiding the ball on your unorthdox or commonly misunderstood interpretation. For example seeing your opponent doing A to accomplish B when by your interpretation of the rule he can't accomplish B. You let him do A then say too bad you can't accomplish B because of how I interpet the rule.

3. Always looking for/using the most powerful list, army, combo available and only using the current power build and using it in every situation even those where it is not appropriate. Example: 10 year vet using the latest power list in a pickup game against a new player.

4. Unable to enjoy the randomness of the game and losses.

5. Having no flexibility with how you treat your opponent and his actions. Example: he starts to move a model, changes his mind and decides to leave it stationary. The model is where it started, he gained no advantage by the partial movement (such as learning that the move would hide the model) and you insist on treating the model as having moved. Just let it go. It doesn't matter. Be sporting.

6. Not telling your opponent you are a WAAC player ahead of time. If you only want to use the most competitive list you can and every game you play is either a competition or preparation for a competition, tell your opponent. They can either decide that isn't the sort of game they want to play, or they can bring an appropriate army and mindset. If you hide that though and they bring a "fun" list that you subsequently smash with your tournament list, you are neither a great player nor a decent human being, and you are a coward because you didn't risk playing against their A game/list. There is nothing wrong with being uber competitive, just let people know so they can respond appropriately.

This list isn't complete, but hits the major themes. I'm not saying that everything on this list is wrong to do especially in the right context, but if the more of these that apply to a player and the more rigid he is on having them apply to him all the time, the more likely it is that he is a WAAC player.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
To me it is a combination of factors and they don't necessarily all have to be present, they aren't all necessarily bad and for some whether they are bad or not depends on the context.

1. Out right cheating by moving extra distance, fixing dice rolls, picking up failed rolls before the opponent can see they are failures, etc.

2. Interpreting any ambiguity in your favor and against your opponent and not being consistent in this. i.e. treating a rule or principle one way one moment then flipping it the next.

2a. Hiding the ball on your unorthdox or commonly misunderstood interpretation. For example seeing your opponent doing A to accomplish B when by your interpretation of the rule he can't accomplish B. You let him do A then say too bad you can't accomplish B because of how I interpet the rule.

3. Always looking for/using the most powerful list, army, combo available and only using the current power build and using it in every situation even those where it is not appropriate. Example: 10 year vet using the latest power list in a pickup game against a new player.

4. Unable to enjoy the randomness of the game and losses.

5. Having no flexibility with how you treat your opponent and his actions. Example: he starts to move a model, changes his mind and decides to leave it stationary. The model is where it started, he gained no advantage by the partial movement (such as learning that the move would hide the model) and you insist on treating the model as having moved. Just let it go. It doesn't matter. Be sporting.

6. Not telling your opponent you are a WAAC player ahead of time. If you only want to use the most competitive list you can and every game you play is either a competition or preparation for a competition, tell your opponent. They can either decide that isn't the sort of game they want to play, or they can bring an appropriate army and mindset. If you hide that though and they bring a "fun" list that you subsequently smash with your tournament list, you are neither a great player nor a decent human being, and you are a coward because you didn't risk playing against their A game/list. There is nothing wrong with being uber competitive, just let people know so they can respond appropriately.

This list isn't complete, but hits the major themes. I'm not saying that everything on this list is wrong to do especially in the right context, but if the more of these that apply to a player and the more rigid he is on having them apply to him all the time, the more likely it is that he is a WAAC player.

This being said, I feel a bit more comfortable about myself. I can rest easy. >.<

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more.

Do you also consider it WAAC to roll a 3+ armor save for your tactical marine when hit by a lasgun? Because that's the same level of rule "ambiguity" that there was with vehicles firing gun emplacements before the rules were changed. And it's very easy to explain fluff-wise: the driver gets out of the vehicle and fires the gun, the gun has a remote control system that the vehicle is using, etc.

Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

That's not WAAC, it's just GW failing to write functioning rules. Remember that there is a clear precedent for "weird" effects not granting cover saves: markerlights. And it uses the exact same "it's not a wound or glance/pen, therefore no saves" argument. So why is one WAAC and the other is just how the game works?

This is clearly a case of getting stuck in minor details and missing the point.
If GW could write clear rules, YMDC wouldn't exist. My point was, that in my opinion, WAAC players also covers persons who seek out exploitive areas. Like people who modeled their bastion with all the heavy bolters facing 1 way to fire them all at the same time, it couldn't qualify as modeling for advantage because the building was same height, had correct numbers of fire points and acces point and was qualified as medium-sized building.
As I mentioned in the former post, it wasn't at all relevant if you agreed with the provided examples or not, they where just used as examples for people who argued rules in their favor, without informing you before hand, and use it against you to gain an advantage. Like, you think your Wave Serpent is golden behind a fortification, getting 2+ cover due to wargear and suddenly you realize that, even though only a fraction of the wave serpent's body is visible, it's a sitting duck against the centurion because you'd think that a weapon that rolls to wound 99% of the time (which you normally get cover for, so it's totally logical to assume that would be the case with vehicles, hence the reason why you'd NEVER assume for it to be like a marker light), would qualify as something that could be taken cover against, otherwise you'd never move the wave serpent near that unit and that mistake was only made by you, because you where never informed that there was an exploitive way to use the weapon.
You seem to be under the impression that I somehow begrudge people who use the Quadgun with the Razorback and that I would deny my opponent using it in such a manor. If you're so offended with the example of the Quadgun then how about the classic Skyshield conga line of conscripts getting 4++ 30" away due to horrible rule writing, forcing your opponent to pour trice the amount of firepower to kill a unit, because the first time your opponent shot at the unit he just assumed they had no save, until you lift your shoulders and "hey man, that's GW for you! Not my fault, that's GW's fail rules, that doesn't make me a WAAC".

As this thread demonstrates, no, we cannot.

That's what I thought.

Witch hunt !

 Zewrath wrote:
This is clearly a case of getting stuck in minor details and missing the point.

No, I got your point, it was just a bad point. Based on those examples you provided your definition of WAAC seems to be "someone who favors a rule interpretation that I don't agree with". Those aren't clear cases of RAI vs. RAW like the old eyeless models "issue", they were perfectly legitimate interpretations that followed RAW and made sense RAI.

Like, you think your Wave Serpent is golden behind a fortification, getting 2+ cover due to wargear and suddenly you realize that, even though only a fraction of the wave serpent's body is visible, it's a sitting duck against the centurion because you'd think that a weapon that rolls to wound 99% of the time (which you normally get cover for, so it's totally logical to assume that would be the case with vehicles, hence the reason why you'd NEVER assume for it to be like a marker light), would qualify as something that could be taken cover against, otherwise you'd never move the wave serpent near that unit and that mistake was only made by you, because you where never informed that there was an exploitive way to use the weapon.

The problem here is the expectation that 40k's rules work like the "real" situation, rather than being an abstraction. Your assumption that the tank gets a 2+ cover save is no different than assuming that the tank gets a 2+ cover save against markerlights, or that a Rhino that is 99.9999999999999% obscured behind a wall should get more than the same 5+ cover save it gets for being 25% obscured. Playing by the rules instead of what "should" happen doesn't make you WAAC.

then how about the classic Skyshield conga line of conscripts getting 4++ 30" away due to horrible rule writing, forcing your opponent to pour trice the amount of firepower to kill a unit, because the first time your opponent shot at the unit he just assumed they had no save, until you lift your shoulders and "hey man, that's GW for you! Not my fault, that's GW's fail rules, that doesn't make me a WAAC"

So now your definition of WAAC is "someone who uses a tactic that I think is too powerful"? There's no rules lawyering here, the unit indisputably gets a 4++ and the fact that you assumed that it doesn't just means you made a mistake. It doesn't mean that the other player is WAAC for claiming the save they're entitled to.

 Portugal Jones wrote:
As this thread demonstrates, no, we cannot.

Even if a clear definition was adapted under threat of ban people would just find a new derogatory term for it (we'd see TFG thrown around instead probably).

Yes, people will rationalize and make excuses for their behavior endlessly so it is best to not even try to address it seriously because it always ends up in nothing more than a flame fest. The WAAC players know who they are and you will find them to be the most vocal in rationalizing and those who are the ones most anxious to excuse their losses of games will be the most vocal in crying WAAC. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

A WAAC player is anyone who fails to abide by DBAD.

Useless term thrown around this forum usualy to describe people that dare to have ambition or treat this whole affair as an actual game not their pewpew fantasies vehicle.

But yes I have an example of something close. Guy is always "laid back" if its the game he has not yet comprehend but if he is actualy good then he gets all pffffft when you make a tiniest mistake. Or how if you forget anything even if its obvious that you would do it (example move a support drone in the right marine`s turn in Level 7, it sits there left out supporting noone but hey you didnt do it at the right moment, its a no). Or is it a TFG? Or a douchebag? Not sure got lost.

Lets try to define HAAC though. Its irrelevant because he painted it all. Every rule is ok because you can roll it . Balance is great because only a douche and a nazi dares to bring good units like Adolf sending Panthers instead of marks III everywhere. Its all about pre game discussion. Etc.

WAAC is a descriptive term. You cannot get a clear-cut definition of a descriptive term.

In general, it refers to players who do everything to win, including willfully ruining the fun for their opponent(s).

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Useless term thrown around this forum usually to describe people that dare to have ambition or treat this whole affair as an actual game not their pewpew fantasies vehicle.

I think that's pretty much it.

This.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mYuF3T7s7XY

Hoihoi

But how do you define a term like sportsmanship? It's largely subjective, ones man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc

Yeah. How do you define a term like "LEGAL", one man's legal is another man's death sentence... you know.

How about moral ?

Yeah.. thought so too.

How about donkey-cave or being a dick ?

Well... "legal" you can define... because it's what is, ya know, permitted by law... that's kind of the definition of "legal"

Moral has a definition... what IS moral is debatable. But the actual term has a definition.

"Dick" also has a definition, what makes someone a dick is debatable.

WAAC, however, has no definition, as what the self-evident definition might be is actually not what most people take it to mean. It is entirely useless terminology.

...I'm lost as to what this thread's purpose was supposed to be then.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Well... "legal" you can define... because it's what is, ya know, permitted by law... that's kind of the definition of "legal"

Moral has a definition... what IS moral is debatable. But the actual term has a definition.

"Dick" also has a definition, what makes someone a dick is debatable.

WAAC, however, has no definition, as what the self-evident definition might be is actually not what most people take it to mean. It is entirely useless terminology.

I'm fine with that too.
@ignored_guy the purpose of this thread is to either get a definition of WAAC or prove that it's a meaningless acronym for witch hunting purposes.
So far, there is no definition.

@socially_insecure_guy: WAAC isn't meaningless as a term, in the contrary, it perfectly fits its use. Not giving you a lecture about how language works, but in short, there are prescriptive and descriptive terms. The former can be clearly defined whereas the latter cannot as they merely describe a matter and can therefore be far more different.

The term would be meaningless if it did not describe anything or if what is described cannot be described at all. WAAC players, however, can be identified by a few traits, as demonstrated in this very thread.

You were looking for affirmation for your very own view of it...which...basically is what you are looking for in each and every thread of yours. Sad.

Competitive types seek competition, which requires a level playing field. Hence they will refrain from abusing using well-known "good/powerful" Codexes or units, from spamming units, from using Forge World stuff, exploit rule-loop holes, and similar things, all of which would skew the competition in the first place (and thus make the victory meaningless, competitively speaking).

WAAC seeks the gratification of winning for whatever reason, so they will happily field abusive lists, knowingly too-good-to-be-true Codexes and/or units, often spamming them, Forge World stuff, exploit quirky RAW-issues and all these other unsporty things that give them an edge, even if it means that the resulting victory is won due to flaws in the game, rather than the players own skill, though most WAAC-players will still claim a victory was "theirs".

 Sigvatr wrote:
@socially_insecure_guy: WAAC isn't meaningless as a term, in the contrary, it perfectly fits its use. Not giving you a lecture about how language works, but in short, there are prescriptive and descriptive terms. The former can be clearly defined whereas the latter cannot as they merely describe a matter and can therefore be far more different.

The term would be meaningless if it did not describe anything or if what is described cannot be described at all. WAAC players, however, can be identified by a few traits, as demonstrated in this very thread.

You were looking for affirmation for your very own view of it...which...basically is what you are looking for in each and every thread of yours. Sad.

The reason I think it's a meaningless term is because it takes on whatever meaning the writer ascribes to it... which you don't know unless they explain it... which makes the term itself meaningless because if you have to explain a term whenever you use it, it's meaningless

It can't literally mean what it says... Win... at... all... costs. It's a figurative term that just means whatever the hell the writer wants, it's more often than not used in a derogatory sense (as "at all costs" is usually meant to imply costs that normal people wouldn't see fit, as it can't literally mean ALL costs).

The term in and of itself is black and white, but it is used to describe many shades of grey.

In summary: I hate it and I wish the community would get over it's fascination with this stupid meaningless acronym and just stick to using common english words in their literal meaning to describe what they want to describe.

 Sigvatr wrote:
...I'm lost as to what this thread's purpose was supposed to be then.

The problem is that the base question is like trying to define how spicy a dish is. It's all subjective.

I like hot food, and enjoy eating things that make me a little red in the face and sweaty. I've got a friend who due to her cultural background, and having nothing but brothers, could probably eat bhut jolokia as a snack food. My sister can't stand anything with even a little burn in it. Ask all three of us what we consider a 'spicy' food, and you're going to get very different answers.

morgoth wrote:
Yeah. How do you define a term like "LEGAL", one man's legal is another man's death sentence... you know.

How about moral ?

Yeah.. thought so too.

How about donkey-cave or being a dick ?

Morgoth?

What would be a more fitting, standard English term then?

I like the term because it's short and easy to understand, even for people not familiar with 40k and its terminology.

More general terms like "bad sportsman" are too broad in my eyes as there are more reasons for someone being a bad sportsman than there are for someone being a WAAC player.

There is no singular term or phrase that replaces WAAC because WAAC doesn't have a singular meaning, it means different things to different people.

It could mean bad sportsman who only wanted to win, so say bad sportsman who only wanted to win. It could mean excessively competitive, so say excessively competitive. It could mean cheating to win, so say cheating to win. It could mean rules lawyering, so say rules lawyering. It could mean precise and unforgiving, so say precise and unforgiving.

WAAC cannot literally mean WAAC because no one is insane enough to want to literally want to win at ALL costs. Realistically it just gets used figuratively to mean "costs above what I think are reasonable" or "costs above this imaginary line I made", and that varies from one person to the next.

It might be more convenient to shorten proper descriptions to an acronym like "WAAC" but that's only a good idea when that acronym is actually a well defined term, which WAAC is not. It's especially stupid because WAAC is more often used as a negative or derogatory term where instead of engaging in proper discussion people just wave it off as "sure, if you're just a WAAC player", "it's only a problem if you're WAAC", "he was just a WAAC dick".

Yes, if people can't articulate what they mean, I'd rather they say nothing at all than use terms like WAAC.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Competitive types seek competition, which requires a level playing field. Hence they will refrain from abusing using well-known "good/powerful" Codexes or units, from spamming units, from using Forge World stuff, exploit rule-loop holes, and similar things, all of which would skew the competition in the first place (and thus make the victory meaningless, competitively speaking).

WAAC seeks the gratification of winning for whatever reason, so they will happily field abusive lists, knowingly too-good-to-be-true Codexes and/or units, often spamming them, Forge World stuff, exploit quirky RAW-issues and all these other unsporty things that give them an edge, even if it means that the resulting victory is won due to flaws in the game, rather than the players own skill, though most WAAC-players will still claim a victory was "theirs".

Wrong.
List building is part of competition.
If you compete with inferior lists you're not really competing.
Rules and loopholes abuse is an entirely different story.

I don't think you can be a competitive player and play blood angels or footdar right now.

It's good for trolling / humiliating an opponent in a competitive setup though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Yes, if people can't articulate what they mean, I'd rather they say nothing at all than use terms like WAAC.

What dakka forum users do not immediately get an idea of a player and how he might act if labeled with WAAC?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
This is clearly a case of getting stuck in minor details and missing the point.

No, I got your point, it was just a bad point. Based on those examples you provided your definition of WAAC seems to be "someone who favors a rule interpretation that I don't agree with". Those aren't clear cases of RAI vs. RAW like the old eyeless models "issue", they were perfectly legitimate interpretations that followed RAW and made sense RAI.

Like, you think your Wave Serpent is golden behind a fortification, getting 2+ cover due to wargear and suddenly you realize that, even though only a fraction of the wave serpent's body is visible, it's a sitting duck against the centurion because you'd think that a weapon that rolls to wound 99% of the time (which you normally get cover for, so it's totally logical to assume that would be the case with vehicles, hence the reason why you'd NEVER assume for it to be like a marker light), would qualify as something that could be taken cover against, otherwise you'd never move the wave serpent near that unit and that mistake was only made by you, because you where never informed that there was an exploitive way to use the weapon.

The problem here is the expectation that 40k's rules work like the "real" situation, rather than being an abstraction. Your assumption that the tank gets a 2+ cover save is no different than assuming that the tank gets a 2+ cover save against markerlights, or that a Rhino that is 99.9999999999999% obscured behind a wall should get more than the same 5+ cover save it gets for being 25% obscured. Playing by the rules instead of what "should" happen doesn't make you WAAC.

then how about the classic Skyshield conga line of conscripts getting 4++ 30" away due to horrible rule writing, forcing your opponent to pour trice the amount of firepower to kill a unit, because the first time your opponent shot at the unit he just assumed they had no save, until you lift your shoulders and "hey man, that's GW for you! Not my fault, that's GW's fail rules, that doesn't make me a WAAC"

So now your definition of WAAC is "someone who uses a tactic that I think is too powerful"? There's no rules lawyering here, the unit indisputably gets a 4++ and the fact that you assumed that it doesn't just means you made a mistake. It doesn't mean that the other player is WAAC for claiming the save they're entitled to.

Not really, they illustrated my point and I said it didn't matter what anyone thought about it, because it was just an example of often discussed things. Again, you seem rather assumptious about what I agree with and what I don't. I never said anything about the skypad being too powerful based on my subjective view, I said that there's a clear RAI that is being exploited due to poor RAW and people who expect (like any rational person does the first time they encounter it) that it wouldn't work that that is in for a bad experience.
And when the actual feth did I ever mention anything about 40k working like anything but in an abstract form? Terminators get cover behind the wall, the rhino, even more obscured suddenly doesn't, this doesn't have anything to do with being marker lights or "thinking abstract", it was a horrible RAW failure that resulted in exploited use. The fact that you don't act like a sport an give the cover save anyway is because you're using glitched RAW to gain an advantage and want to "win at all cost". This example seems rather crystal clear to me and I don't see why the hell you'd even bother to split quote my posts, unless you somehow feel that I'm begrudging you for using said examples above me or something similar, in which case; I could care less.

 Zewrath wrote:
I never said anything about the skypad being too powerful based on my subjective view, I said that there's a clear RAI that is being exploited due to poor RAW and people who expect (like any rational person does the first time they encounter it) that it wouldn't work that that is in for a bad experience.

You're right, there's clear RAI, and it's exactly what RAW says: units on the pad get the save, not models. The only reason to even question this is if you assume that it's too powerful or "unrealistic" and therefore the rules must somehow be meant to do something different. And that's no different than assuming that RAI must be that tactical marines have a 2+ armor save because it isn't fluffy that they die so easily.

Also, if you expect that the unit wouldn't get a 4++ then you suck at 40k and have only yourself to blame. There's nothing in the rules that even comes close to supporting that expectation, so you don't get to blame your opponent and throw around WAAC labels just because you made a mistake about how the rules work.

And when the actual feth did I ever mention anything about 40k working like anything but in an abstract form? Terminators get cover behind the wall, the rhino, even more obscured suddenly doesn't, this doesn't have anything to do with being marker lights or "thinking abstract", it was a horrible RAW failure that resulted in exploited use. The fact that you don't act like a sport an give the cover save anyway is because you're using glitched RAW to gain an advantage and want to "win at all cost".

Again, this is not exploiting RAW. GW set a perfectly clear precedent with markerlights that saves only apply to wounds and glancing/penetrating hits, not to anything else. Weapons that do not inflict wounds or glancing/penetrating hits do not allow saves, even if they cause an effect that the target's owner wants to avoid. Grav weapons just followed this clear precedent because, like markerlights, they do not inflict glancing or penetrating hits on vehicles. Should GW have published a different rule? Sure, you could argue that. But it isn't rules lawyering or WAAC behavior to play a rule according to what GW published instead of what we wish the rule was.

 Peregrine wrote:

Based on those examples you provided your definition of WAAC seems to be "someone who favors a rule interpretation that I don't agree with".

And here lies the entire problem with the WAAC tag. It's entirely subjective, based on how violated someone feels, reguardless of the actual merit of the perceived infraction.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
I never said anything about the skypad being too powerful based on my subjective view, I said that there's a clear RAI that is being exploited due to poor RAW and people who expect (like any rational person does the first time they encounter it) that it wouldn't work that that is in for a bad experience.

You're right, there's clear RAI, and it's exactly what RAW says: units on the pad get the save, not models. The only reason to even question this is if you assume that it's too powerful or "unrealistic" and therefore the rules must somehow be meant to do something different. And that's no different than assuming that RAI must be that tactical marines have a 2+ armor save because it isn't fluffy that they die so easily.

Also, if you expect that the unit wouldn't get a 4++ then you suck at 40k and have only yourself to blame. There's nothing in the rules that even comes close to supporting that expectation, so you don't get to blame your opponent and throw around WAAC labels just because you made a mistake about how the rules work.

And when the actual feth did I ever mention anything about 40k working like anything but in an abstract form? Terminators get cover behind the wall, the rhino, even more obscured suddenly doesn't, this doesn't have anything to do with being marker lights or "thinking abstract", it was a horrible RAW failure that resulted in exploited use. The fact that you don't act like a sport an give the cover save anyway is because you're using glitched RAW to gain an advantage and want to "win at all cost".

Again, this is not exploiting RAW. GW set a perfectly clear precedent with markerlights that saves only apply to wounds and glancing/penetrating hits, not to anything else. Weapons that do not inflict wounds or glancing/penetrating hits do not allow saves, even if they cause an effect that the target's owner wants to avoid. Grav weapons just followed this clear precedent because, like markerlights, they do not inflict glancing or penetrating hits on vehicles. Should GW have published a different rule? Sure, you could argue that. But it isn't rules lawyering or WAAC behavior to play a rule according to what GW published instead of what we wish the rule was.

Never played vs the skypad, other than vs a static army that never moved, so never had that problem or expectation. I vastly disagree with your RAI example, your example is better suited with if somebody claimed that Dorn's Arrow is a storm bolter and thus qualified for a reroll (Bolter Drill) due to fluff saying it's a storm bolter.
Peregrine, if we must continue this conversation may I ask what your purpose is? I said I just provided examples of incidents with exploits to illustrate my point, when you're saying that you understand my point, is there any reason to correct my posts in, pardon me, a rather rude and condescending way?

 Zewrath wrote:
Peregrine, if we must continue this conversation may I ask what your purpose is? I said I just provided examples of incidents with exploits to illustrate my point, when you're saying that you understand my point, is there any reason to correct my posts in, pardon me, a rather rude and condescending way?

My purpose is to point out that your point is a terrible one. I understand it, and it sucks. You're applying the WAAC label to people because they disagree with your rule interpretations, not because they're actually rules lawyering or abusing RAW vs. RAI. All of the situations you've mentioned have been either clear RAW and RAI with no room for argument, or clear RAW and a reasonable argument that RAI is RAW. Your only argument here is your perception that playing by RAW in those cases is "unfair", and you have nothing to support it besides your own feelings. So it is completely inappropriate to call someone WAAC for doing so.

 Sigvatr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Yes, if people can't articulate what they mean, I'd rather they say nothing at all than use terms like WAAC.

What dakka forum users do not immediately get an idea of a player and how he might act if labeled with WAAC?

What do you mean? You "get an idea", yeah ok, you get an idea that it's a player that wanted to win more than the player who is ascribing the term... but beyond that you don't know what they mean without them explaining what they mean. Look at this very thread and there's people bickering over what is and isn't WAAC, since the term doesn't even have a dictionary definition (well, it does, but that definition can't be taken literally because it would be fething stupid) and different people take it to mean different things.

It could be over competitive, it could be bad sportsman, it could be cheating, it could be that he pulled out a gun and shot the other player rather than lose... you don't know because the term in and of itself is meaningless and more often than not a slur used to avoid discussion instead of address discussion.

I hate both those things... meaningless terms and terms that are used as dismissive slurs.

it has nothing to do with being a good player or army lists or being the one who wins or whatnot. Those who claim it is are usually just covering for the fact that they are one themselves.
Itactually covers the attitude of the player themselves. If someone scrutinizes and reads the rulebook looking for exploitable loopholes and acts like a jerk, for example touching your models without permission, getting food on the playing table, spilling pop on it, cusses nonstop and whines or leaves the game to talk on the cell phone for a half hour at a time ect and so forth, they fall into that catagory. It is all about the attitude and not nothing to do with the actual lists and playing skill.

 EVIL INC wrote:
If someone scrutinizes and reads the rulebook looking for exploitable loopholes

See I've never actually seen a problem with this. We play a game, the game has rules, I've never seen a problem with scrutinising those rules to win the game. I blame the rules writers for leaving loopholes, not the players that play the loopholes. Even arguing RAW vs RAI is a bit silly to me as the rules are an abstraction, knowing what was intended vs what was written is entirely subjective. It's only when the rules are contradictory or vague and you have to start guessing at what was intended.

It is annoying when you're surprised mid game by an interpretation you aren't familiar with... but again, GW's fault for writing rules with so many fething flaws that they let that happen. It can even happen between 2 players who don't give a feth about winning, sometimes you just meet someone who interprets a rule differently to you and it's vague enough that it could go either way and hopefully your game doesn't hinge on it.

Most of the other stuff you said just comes down to being obnoxious, not sure how it relates to "winning" at all so I don't see how it can be considered WAAC.

The rules writers are ultimately responsible for that. However, only a total blank (insert expletive) would go to the trouble of scrutinizing those rules to search for exploitable loopholes that were never intended and only the same blank would use those loopholes to justify it. An example is using tanks to fire emplacement weapons. However, those are raw so there is nothing we can do about it except accept that there are those sorts of players. However, those are also the same players who will also cheat. You know, the magically telescoping tape measure where a 6 inch movement turns into 8 when you measure it yourself or those who will pick up a model to check out your paint job and then "accidentally" put it back down in a different position on the table this time out of range. Some will claim that these are two different sets of people but we all know it isnt.They are also the ones I mentioned in terms of dropping food on the table and so on. You will notice that there are a few protesting a little TOO much. I would hazard a guess at a guilty conscience. But thats just WAAC, as I said, it is a general attitude. ALL in that phrase including honesty and fair play. You'll have it and you'll have them on online forums. Thats why these threads always devolve into flame fests that eventually get closed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Peregrine, if we must continue this conversation may I ask what your purpose is? I said I just provided examples of incidents with exploits to illustrate my point, when you're saying that you understand my point, is there any reason to correct my posts in, pardon me, a rather rude and condescending way?

My purpose is to point out that your point is a terrible one. I understand it, and it sucks. You're applying the WAAC label to people because they disagree with your rule interpretations, not because they're actually rules lawyering or abusing RAW vs. RAI. All of the situations you've mentioned have been either clear RAW and RAI with no room for argument, or clear RAW and a reasonable argument that RAI is RAW. Your only argument here is your perception that playing by RAW in those cases is "unfair", and you have nothing to support it besides your own feelings. So it is completely inappropriate to call someone WAAC for doing so.

Fair enough I see where you're coming from but I do need to point out that I'm not disagreeing with the said rule interpretations; I find them stupid, pretty important difference.

Exactly it is an important difference. The person s technically working within the rules. It is the act of searching and scrutinizing the rules for possible exploits to sneak in on others. A decent person will discuss such things with an opponent before the game.
Again it comes down to the ATTITUDE of the player.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The rules writers are ultimately responsible for that. However, only a total blank (insert expletive) would go to the trouble of scrutinizing those rules to search for exploitable loopholes that were never intended and only the same blank would use those loopholes to justify it. An example is using tanks to fire emplacement weapons. However, those are raw so there is nothing we can do about it except accept that there are those sorts of players. However, those are also the same players who will also cheat. You know, the magically telescoping tape measure where a 6 inch movement turns into 8 when you measure it yourself or those who will pick up a model to check out your paint job and then "accidentally" put it back down in a different position on the table this time out of range. Some will claim that these are two different sets of people but we all know it isnt.They are also the ones I mentioned in terms of dropping food on the table and so on. You will notice that there are a few protesting a little TOO much. I would hazard a guess at a guilty conscience. But thats just WAAC, as I said, it is a general attitude. ALL in that phrase including honesty and fair play. You'll have it and you'll have them on online forums. Thats why these threads always devolve into flame fests that eventually get closed.

I do think you're stretching a bit with over generalisation.

I have at times used things people might consider not "RAI" or rules lawyering to get an advantage. Funnily enough when it comes up in games you can get the person who goes "oh, huh, I didn't realise that's how the rule was written, ok" and then other people who kick up a stink complaining about how they don't think that's what was intended and how it's a dirty move of me to do that and whatever. Usually against those sorts of annoying people I just say whatever and play it how they want to avoid stupid arguments.

As I said before, it a game, it has rules, I play by those rules unless we agree to change the rules (which I'm also happy to do, but up until we do I assume we are playing RAW and RAI is entirely subjective).

I do however not cheat and I don't touch other peoples' models and I don't like other people touching my models. I'm not loud or obnoxious or any of the other things you describe. I simply play to win and play by the rules... to some people apparently that's still WAAC

But whatever, play how you want to play... our exchange is just proving to me the idiocy of the term "WAAC".

it's really simple. if you've done something that is game-legal but not supported by the fluff, and you've done that because you want to win the game rather than play a fluffy narrative style thing, then that's probably WAAC. if you attempt to cheat, twist the rules, bully your opponent then you're a WAAC type.
if the two are combined then you're definitely a WAAC type.

if you're arguing that these things are ok, you're a WAAC type.

is being WAAC actually a bad thing though? after all, each of us play the hobby in a different way? i'm think that WAAC is a bit sad, but unless a person is cheating or being a dill weed then no worries.

 daddyorchips wrote:
it's really simple. if you've done something that is game-legal but not supported by the fluff, and you've done that because you want to win the game rather than play a fluffy narrative style thing, then that's probably WAAC. if you attempt to cheat, twist the rules, bully your opponent then you're a WAAC type.
if the two are combined then you're definitely a WAAC type.

if you're arguing that these things are ok, you're a WAAC type.

is being WAAC actually a bad thing though? after all, each of us play the hobby in a different way? i'm think that WAAC is a bit sad, but unless a person is cheating or being a dill weed then no worries.

If that's your definition of WAAC then it's a terrible one.

But on the upside it proves my earlier point....

The reason I think it's a meaningless term is because it takes on whatever meaning the writer ascribes to it... which you don't know unless they explain it... which makes the term itself meaningless because if you have to explain a term whenever you use it, it's meaningless

I was pretty accurate in my description. of course, there will be the rare exception and in online forums, everyone will of course claim to be that exception. Mainly because of the facelessness of the internet. All costs means ALL costs. All includes decency and honesty. If the term does not apply to you then it does not apply. If it does, chances are it will be denied because no one wants to be called out on their behavior. This is why you need only look to see who denies it the most to see who it applies to.

It is true the rules are the rules. However, as we have seen, some are questionable and are obviously oversights or errors that have yet to be fixed. It is not hard to discuss such things with an opponent before a game. A game of 40k is a social event among other things and as such means you should not be trying to pull one over on the opponent. For example, waiting for an opponent to look away during deployment and then hiding a commander inside a piece of terraign or taking a big commander with upgrades, retinue and so on and so forth but not using it as your army commander while letting your opponent assume it is while actually using a lesserlowly commander as the army commander because you know the opponent will go after the big guy think9ng it is it. Then after the game informing them they did not get kill the warlord. Those are technically within the rules but still not something a non waac player would do.
Once again it is the attitude of the player. A WAAC player knows who they are because the term is self explanitory. There is no need to define it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Once again it is the attitude of the player. A WAAC player knows who they are because the term is self explanitory. There is no need to define it.

This makes no sense to me.

Win at all costs is self explanatory... but no part of win at all costs refers specifically to attitude. That's the cost YOU are assigning to it.

There is no such thing as a literal win at all costs player, because everyone has costs they aren't willing to pay in order to win. That is exactly why the term needs defining, it can't be taken to mean it's literal meaning because it's literal meaning is insane, it's literal meaning is black and white.

It never means at ALL costs, it just means whatever costs the writer ascribes. As I said on the previous page, It could be over competitive, it could be bad sportsman, it could be cheating, it could be that he pulled out a gun and shot the other player rather than lose... you don't know because the term in and of itself is meaningless (or more accurately has a very specific meaning that is absurd) and more often than not it is a slur used to avoid discussion instead of address discussion.

Ironically it's mostly used as a slur against other players but whenever someone uses the term WAAC it makes me think less of the user than the player to whom it's meant to refer.

If you take it's literal meaning then no one is WAAC, except maybe the most crazed sociopath who played one game and killed his opponent and is now in jail.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't address the rest of your post. Again I think you're making sweeping generalisations and just putting things in to the box you understand and feel is acceptable and outside that box is "WAAC"... again, the term is just taking on the meaning you want to give it, not some inherent definition it actually has.

Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

Indeed, that's what this thread stinks of to me as well. Though it's been kind of fun watching all the fighting. Like watching people debate what the color maroon smells like.

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

I think it's because Morgoth also insists that he can Jink blasts that scatters on top of his Serpent, even though said Serpent isn't eligible for Jink.

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

Nah, this was for someone else.

For the Serpent Spam, I tend to get more TFG than WAAC

It's all down to context.

If you use Serpent spam in a tournament, all is well.

If you tried to use it against my CSM army (which is balanced like a CSM army you'd expect to see in the fluff, not like a min-maxed tournament list) I'd politely decline and suggest that you find a more like-minded opponent.

There are things that are outright nasty no matter the situation, though. Toxic behaviour, cheating, tricking newbies into thinking that BA footlists are fine against necron air force lists. Things like that. That is what distinguishes a TFG.

WAAC is simply defined, they do everything to win. Including not only using the very best lists but also cheating, trying to decieve you, and so on.

 Ashiraya wrote:
It's all down to context.

If you use Serpent spam in a tournament, all is well.

If you tried to use it against my CSM army (which is balanced like a CSM army you'd expect to see in the fluff, not like a min-maxed tournament list) I'd politely decline and suggest that you find a more like-minded opponent.

There are things that are outright nasty no matter the situation, though. Toxic behaviour, cheating, tricking newbies into thinking that BA footlists are fine against necron air force lists. Things like that. That is what distinguishes a TFG.

WAAC is simply defined, they do everything to win. Including not only using the very best lists but also cheating, trying to decieve you, and so on.

I think that's fine.

If you're tired of a build you can't handle or don't want to, you can just politely tell your opponent you'd rather not play against that build.

And that's really all there is to say anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


It could be over competitive, it could be bad sportsman, it could be cheating, it could be that he pulled out a gun and shot the other player rather than lose... you don't know because the term in and of itself is meaningless and more often than not a slur used to avoid discussion instead of address discussion.

Testiment being this thread, most of the time, people who do complain about the label are WAAC players

In general, WAAC means being a bad sportsman by purposefully making the game unfun for your opponent. This includes bringing unfun lists with the sole purpose of stomping other players (and compensating...) and bending / exploiting the rules as far as they can to the border of breaking. It's a descriptive term and most people know what it means or rather get a vague idea of it - which means the term does what it does.

My statements remain true. It is not about army lists and what units you take or about even going by RAW as many of the WAAC players will try to say. Also, of course, when called out on it, they will try to deflect and refuse to take responsibility for their actions. LOL. The rest of us do so why shouldnt they?

It is about the attitude of the player. The attitude of trying to pull one over on someone else by searching for and scrutinizing every rule in order to find a way to twist it in such a way that it is warped beyond recognition. "There is no rule that says I am not allowed to touch your models and smear pizza grease all over them in oder to make you mad enough that you will play innefectively. If there is, cite it for me", "There is no rule that specifically states that I have to tell you which of my two HQ units is my army commander. If there is, cite the rules that specifically spells it out" "there is no rule that specifically says thing tank cant fire an emplacement gun. If there is, cite it". The list goes on and on forever.
It is about the attitude of the player and is spelled out literally in the word itself. Win At ALL Costs. All means all. Dishonesty, cheating, downright lying whatever it takes. Obviously no one wants to be called out on it. This is why these threads always devolve into flame fests without every covering anything. The answer is literally spelled outin the word itself. The key word in it being ALL. THAT is the word that needs to be defined. To me, all means all with no exceptions.

 EVIL INC wrote:
To me, all means all with no exceptions.

Including socially pressuring your opponent into taking a worse army list for "fluff" purposes, thereby securing a victory.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"there is no rule that specifically says thing tank cant fire an emplacement gun. If there is, cite it".

Oh FFS, please stop citing this one as a sign of a WAAC player.

By RAW you could do it, the rule indisputably said "any model", not "any non-vehicle model" or "any infantry model" or anything else that might suggest that vehicles can't fire the gun.

By RAI you could do it, there was nothing in those rules that even came close to suggesting that vehicles firing the guns was an unintended outcome.

By fluff you could do it, as it's trivially easy to imagine the driver getting out and firing the gun while the tank is parked next to it, the commander firing it with a remote link, etc.

The ONLY thing stopping vehicles from using gun emplacements was the fact that certain players decided that it was "unfair" or "cheesy" and insisted on bullying everyone else into accepting their house rule. And their tactics? Constant accusations of rules lawyering, WAAC behavior, etc, against anyone who pointed out that they were just making up. And you're just continuing that shameful tradition by making WAAC mean "someone who doesn't play the game the way I want them to play it".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
For example, waiting for an opponent to look away during deployment and then hiding a commander inside a piece of terraign

That is not even close to WAAC behavior. Part of 40k is being able to look at the table and understand what is going on, if you can't see a model because you didn't bother to look behind the LOS blocking terrain then you aren't paying enough attention and deserve to be surprised by it.

or taking a big commander with upgrades, retinue and so on and so forth but not using it as your army commander while letting your opponent assume it is while actually using a lesserlowly commander as the army commander because you know the opponent will go after the big guy think9ng it is it.

So why didn't you take the few seconds required to say "which character is your warlord"? This isn't WAAC behavior, it's just a clueless player making stupid assumptions instead of asking for clarification and paying the price for it.

[quote=Peregrine 617483 7257943 6e2a7a65b40f1b794057fa352dcb053f.jpg
That is not even close to WAAC behavior. Part of 40k is being able to look at the table and understand what is going on, if you can't see a model because you didn't bother to look behind the LOS blocking terrain then you aren't paying enough attention and deserve to be surprised by it.

morgoth wrote:
I disagree, 40K is meant to be played with everything visible and no fog of war, and a good player will always tell you instead of sneakily trying to have you ignore that unit.

Why am I obligated to say "look at my important unit over here, be sure you're aware of it and think about how you're going to kill it"? It's not my job to make up for your failure to study the situation properly. I'll gladly answer any questions you have about a unit's rules or upgrades, but I'm not going to remind you about what you should be paying attention to or help you make any other strategic choices.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Competitive types seek competition, which requires a level playing field. Hence they will refrain from abusing using well-known "good/powerful" Codexes or units, from spamming units, from using Forge World stuff, exploit rule-loop holes, and similar things, all of which would skew the competition in the first place (and thus make the victory meaningless, competitively speaking).

WAAC seeks the gratification of winning for whatever reason, so they will happily field abusive lists, knowingly too-good-to-be-true Codexes and/or units, often spamming them, Forge World stuff, exploit quirky RAW-issues and all these other unsporty things that give them an edge, even if it means that the resulting victory is won due to flaws in the game, rather than the players own skill, though most WAAC-players will still claim a victory was "theirs".

I think this hits the nail on the head for the general image associated with a WAAC player. The key is a desire to win without regard to fair contest and the employment of dubious means because they aren't actually good enough to win on their own merits.

 Sigvatr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


It could be over competitive, it could be bad sportsman, it could be cheating, it could be that he pulled out a gun and shot the other player rather than lose... you don't know because the term in and of itself is meaningless and more often than not a slur used to avoid discussion instead of address discussion.

Testiment being this thread, most of the time, people who do complain about the label are WAAC players

Are you just trying to prove my point of WAAC being a stupid term by using it in a sweeping generalisation to disregard people who complain about the label?

If that was intentional, bravo. If it wasn't, then Either way I'm amused.

FWIW, I am complaining that WAAC is a stupid term and I don't consider myself WAAC at all. When I play a game I expect to play by the RAW and I won't give my opponent concessions unless they specifically ask for them, that's about the only random definition of WAAC I seem to fit. Beyond that I endeavour to be a good sportsman.

In general, WAAC means being a bad sportsman by purposefully making the game unfun for your opponent.

See the reason I take umbrage with this term is it so often NOT obvious that's what the person using it means.

It's a descriptive term and most people know what it means or rather get a vague idea of it - which means the term does what it does.

I would say most people don't know what it means, yeah they get a vague idea but IMO that's not good enough. It just makes it a stupid vague term used to make sweeping generalisations, a dismissive slur and is an attempt to avoid discussion instead of promote it.

To me, people using the WAAC label are the conversational equivalent of bad sportsman

IIRC one example that was used previously on this board to explain a loophole a WAAC player would take advantage of was deploying vehicles sideways, then upon moving rotate them so that they gained a extra inch and then moved them.

An example of a perfectly legal, poor rule writing that no one would actually take advantage of unless of course they were reallllly wanting to win; the extra inch isn't the big deal, it's the fact you went to such extents to find the loophole to legally handwave it.

Quickjager wrote:
IIRC one example that was used previously on this board to explain a loophole a WAAC player would take advantage of was deploying vehicles sideways, then upon moving rotate them so that they gained a extra inch and then moved them.

An example of a perfectly legal, poor rule writing that no one would actually take advantage of unless of course they were reallllly wanting to win; the extra inch isn't the big deal, it's the fact you went to such extents to find the loophole to legally handwave it.

That's not a lot of costs there. Just learning the rules as they are.
If you know it works that way and don't use it, you're just limiting yourself and insulting your opponent by giving him freebies.

Does it not bother anyone else that there's even a thing like "RAI" versus "RAW"? The intent of the rules should be clear enough that there's no ambiguity over what you're doing so it has to come up that you aren't playing the game "as intended". That, like so many other arguments about playstyle, seems to be something that only happens in 40k.

In Warmachine if I use Behemoth to Trample and still fire (getting extra movement for the shot, basically) because he has Virtuoso and can make Trample attacks and still shoot, there's no question of whether that's intended or not, because the rules say that's how it works, and so it works. But if something similar existed in 40k (imagine something like being able to do something to get additional movement and still be able to fire a Heavy weapon) it would probably spark a debate over if that's the intent of the rule or someone being a WAAC TFG.

Or a better example: a Spriggan can use Bulldoze to precisely (based on your positioning) push models out of the way, opening up charges to models further back in a unit (like oh, say, an enemy Warcaster). Nobody ever complains that you can turn specifically to push models away from you without pushing them backwards, or that you can use Bulldoze to get the charge bonus when you're closer than 3" (because if you move further than 3" due to Bulldoze, you get the charge bonus when you end). But that same kind of rule in 40k would likely bring up accusations of not playing to the "spirit of the game".

That whole concept, that there's a certain mentality for the game and trying to either follow the rules exactly or thinking the rules are entirely up for interpretation, is one of the weirdest things about a game that I have ever seen. I even recall entire articles in old White Dwarfs talking about the "spirit of the game" and how people who deviated from it were bad people that you probably shouldn't play again if you can avoid it because they are "doing it wrong". Mind boggling.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Does it not bother anyone else that there's even a thing like "RAI" versus "RAW"? The intent of the rules should be clear enough that there's no ambiguity over what you're doing so it has to come up that you aren't playing the game "as intended". That, like so many other arguments about playstyle, seems to be something that only happens in 40k.

In Warmachine if I use Behemoth to Trample and still fire (getting extra movement for the shot, basically) because he has Virtuoso and can make Trample attacks and still shoot, there's no question of whether that's intended or not, because the rules say that's how it works, and so it works. But if something similar existed in 40k (imagine something like being able to do something to get additional movement and still be able to fire a Heavy weapon) it would probably spark a debate over if that's the intent of the rule or someone being a WAAC TFG.

Or a better example: a Spriggan can use Bulldoze to precisely (based on your positioning) push models out of the way, opening up charges to models further back in a unit (like oh, say, an enemy Warcaster). Nobody ever complains that you can turn specifically to push models away from you without pushing them backwards, or that you can use Bulldoze to get the charge bonus when you're closer than 3" (because if you move further than 3" due to Bulldoze, you get the charge bonus when you end). But that same kind of rule in 40k would likely bring up accusations of not playing to the "spirit of the game".

That whole concept, that there's a certain mentality for the game and trying to either follow the rules exactly or thinking the rules are entirely up for interpretation, is one of the weirdest things about a game that I have ever seen. I even recall entire articles in old White Dwarfs talking about the "spirit of the game" and how people who deviated from it were bad people that you probably shouldn't play again if you can avoid it because they are "doing it wrong". Mind boggling.

I think it's that particular perverted mentality that made most serious gamers move to other games or WHFB, leaving 40K the (only) home of the real WAAC TFG crowd (those who so like those acronyms).

The very act of arguing my points prove them. My statements stand as truth. Thank you for the assistance.
In the word WAAC, All is the most important word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification
The word remains self definitive.

This does not mean that it is a word i often use. i have other words for such players. One of these is "guy I refuse to play". Again, note that it is not because of army listsor units taken. Only "WAAC" players will cry and act like that itwhat the term means in order to justify their behavior that they refuse to take responsibility for.It is because of the attitude they have towards playing.
You will find these players just as often in other games like fantasy (which I grew out of long ago), Dustrmachiner any other game including such black and white ones as chess and checkers.

WAAC means just that. They are prepared to do anything to win. Even shanking you while they pretend to step out for a quick smoke.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This does not mean that it is a word i often use. i have other words for such players. One of these is "guy I refuse to play". Again, note that it is not because of army listsor units taken. Only "WAAC" players will cry and act like that itwhat the term means in order to justify their behavior that they refuse to take responsibility for.It is because of the attitude they have towards playing.
You will find these players just as often in other games like fantasy (which I grew out of long ago), Dustrmachiner any other game including such black and white ones as chess and checkers.

Once again with the sweeping generalisations, it's stupid. I'm complaining about the term WAAC and I really am not anything most people would consider WAAC, I just think it's a fething stupid term used to make stupid dismissive and often sweeping generalisations like what you are doing right now. "Only WAAC blah blah blah".

Also what's wrong with Fantasy? It's always had a more mature crowd amongst the gamers I have seen.

Try to keep it polite and leave name calling out of it.
A simple truth is not generalizing. if you do not like the term (read through the wiki definition. I know wiki isnt ALWAYS correct, but on this it is), dont use it. If it applies to you, assess your own actions, behaviors and attitudes (not saying it does apply to you).
The term is valid and it IS self definitive. Deadshot was joking but he was accurate. A WAAC player would do just as he said if they thought they could get away with it instead of getting carted off to jail and lose by default. ALL means ALL.

There is nothing wrong with fantasy. I started my wargaming on fantasy. If you want to get into a fantasy/40k debate, start a thread on it. Ive found that the "crowd" who plays is only defined by the amount of $ they have. You find older (not really more mature) players in fantasy because it costs more $ to play. although 40k is catching up in these last 2 editions with the more models on the table mentality GW is getting.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Try to keep it polite and leave name calling out of it.
A simple truth is not generalizing. if you do not like the term (read through the wiki definition. I know wiki isnt ALWAYS correct, but on this it is), dont use it. If it applies to you, assess your own actions, behaviors and attitudes (not saying it does apply to you).
The term is valid and it IS self definitive. Deadshot was joking but he was accurate. A WAAC player would do just as he said if they thought they could get away with it instead of getting carted off to jail and lose by default. ALL means ALL.

I wasn't name calling, I was calling your generalisations stupid... which they are. "Only "WAAC" players" is what you said, that's a sweeping generalisation not a simple truth.

Your wiki link was to a mathematical symbol using mathematical language... I'm not really seeing how it relates. I understand what it means mathematically and logically but I have really have no idea how it's supposed to relate to this so you're going to have to expand a bit on that. We know what "all" means, we don't need to define it as a universal quantifier.

If it's self definitive then using it's literal definition, there are no WAAC players because no one is that insane as to actually want to win at ALL costs. In reality it's just limited to whatever costs the writer is giving it, which you don't know unless they explain it. So in the context in which it is typically used, it is not self definitive.

If you want to get into a fantasy/40k debate, start a thread on it.

I don't, you just said you grew out of it and I found that odd. I don't see a correlation between WHFB vs 40k and age/maturity.

I know people who have grown out of wargaming entirely. I know people who have grown out of 40k and in to other games. Growing out of WHFB and in to 40k just seems odd to me as I can't think of any reason why WHFB -> 40k would be growing experience

Spamming does not make your point any more true or mine any less.

The name calling aside, WAAC is self definitive. the key word is ALL. All = All. There is no way around that. That is not a sweeping generalization, it is a simple mathematical truth.

if you wish to have a fantasy/40k debate, start a thread on it. Just be warned, those usually turn into flame fests where one side is putting down the other. Both are great games.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Spamming does not make your point any more true or mine any less.

Well perhaps you just need to explain it better... for example, why did you post a link to universal quantifier? I don't understand what that was supposed to add to the discussion.

The name calling aside,

It wasn't name calling... I was calling sweeping generalisations stupid. I do stupid things all the time... like replying to this thread I don't consider myself or yourself stupid though. When I say a footballer made a stupid pass it doesn't mean I think they themselves are stupid, it was just a poor choice.

WAAC is self definitive. the key word is ALL. All = All. There is no way around that. That is not a sweeping generalization, it is a simple mathematical truth.

Ok then lets get down to brass tacks... so you feel that WAAC should be taken as literal and thus there are no WAAC players because only the most deranged sociopath could be classified as WAAC?

Or do you think that there are actually WAAC players and WAAC is actually a useful term, in which case it is not self definitive because there is no qualifier to indicate "all costs" means anything less than "all costs".

if you wish to have a fantasy/40k debate, start a thread on it. Just be warned, those usually turn into flame fests where one side is putting down the other. Both are great games.

Umm... ok? You seem to be attracted to flamefests I simply wanted you to elaborate on why you "grew out of" WHFB, whether you felt it was because WHFB was for a less mature person (which is how I took it) or whether you meant something else I didn't understand.