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

Let me start by saying that I define WAAC as a player that plays to win, will use what ever is LEGAL in the system to use ( I despise cheating as much as the next.) I am simply curious as to why it is viewed in such a negative light to want to win. I understand that there are players that play for the fluff etc. This is fine, it is how they choose to play the game, however when someone else chooses to play the game a different way beats them, they scream cheese and WAAC, etc.

Is it so wrong to want to win? We play games for fun just because some players tie winning more closely to fun does that mean that there type of fun is inferior?

I simply can not wrap my head around the fact that some people think it is horrible to bring a list ( lets say a KAN wall for example) when it is legal. Anyone else could have also brought this list, yet people are still outraged. Why is this? Does playing for "fun" equate to "playing units that I know are not as effective"?

So dakka please enlighten me why is WAAC bad? What makes it so horrible?

Edit*

Title of thread has been changed as I was incorrect on the definition of WAAC. As such it has been changed to the above.

I have a different definition of a "WAAC" player. Win at all costs means doing anything in your power to win - even cheating or rules lawyering to win.

A "Competitive" gamer is the kind of guy who will bring a 3x3 Kan wall with KFF Meks and play to win, but at the end of the day knows its just toy soldiers, and will not attempt to cheat or be underhanded with the rules to achieve victory. They want to "earn" the win, not just get it at all costs.

A "WAAC" gamer will do anything to win, even cheating or lawyering the rules in their favor. People like this change dice around when your not looking, bring loaded dice, model to gaming advantage, throw tantrums, lawyer rules (won't let you fire a flamer out of a top hatch of rhino pre-FAQ ect), bring their 3x3 Kan wall KFF orks against their friend who is brand new to the game. Just general douchebaggery to achieve the win at all costs.

Thats how I view the term "WAAC" anyway. I am a "competitive" gamer myself.

As noted, it's because you're using a nonstandard definition of WAAC. Win At All Costs implicitly means that the person will stop at nothing. Cheating, dice shenanigans, modeling for advantage, misinterpreting or bending the rules, are all within the purview of WAAC behavior. "At all costs" often means the cost of your good reputation, and the company of friends.

---------

There do exist people who mislabel legal and normal game-playing as being "WAAC". This is their misuse of the term and slander of sporting and honest players.

Thank you for clearing that up. I suppose I would just be in the competitive mind set. Although I will lawyer rules on occasion. Let me explain, if a rule is absurd it, makes very little intuitive sense but it is technically legal, then why should you not use it?

I do not agree with having something written, then trying to put your own interpretation on it to better suit your needs.

jacetms87 wrote:Thank you for clearing that up. I suppose I would just be in the competitive mind set. Although I will lawyer rules on occasion. Let me explain, if a rule is absurd it, makes very little intuitive sense but it is technically legal, then why should you not use it?

You can show some class? At the end of the days its all just toy soldiers. The rules are so poorly written and obscure in some areas, that there comes times you need to use RAI (Rules as intended) over RAW (Rules as written). It makes the game much smoother for both parties. If you can't come to an agreement, then just 4+ it (or in a tournament, grab a TO).

I agree wholeheartedly with a simple 4+, if it is not clear, I am speaking about clear things (IE wound allocation on complex units)

@ scubasteve04: I do not think it detracts from me as a person. I also do not think that it shows class to hamstring your self in a game where any player may do the same. It is not as if someone else can not do the exact same practice.

As others have stated, your definition of WAAC is rather limited compared to many other people's.

But, even with your definition, there are times when you'll be seen as a jerk.

The key is to know the environment you're playing in. Lots of players focus on having a good time, and do things like take sub-optimal units because they like them. If you take an optimized list designed only to win, you'll beat them easily. And, no one has fun in a blowout game.

You wouldn't be in the wrong, but if you join a playgroup where everyone else is trying to have a fun game and you simply focus on winning, don't be surprised if no one wants to play against you.

(But, feel free to call that a win if you want.)

Because WAAC brings the thought of someone who cheats to win. There is nothing wrong with being competitive, and there's nothing wrong with playing to win. As long as you play fair and are not a douche. Also, I personally wouldn't want to play to win against a newer player, or use a competitive list against a list that really isn't, because that takes the fun out of it.

There is nothing wrong with wining. The only tag I would add would be that wining shouldn't come at the cost of having fun.

@Grakmar.
If players like taking sub optimal units, that is fine, it is there choice. Does it make me a jerk to bring units that I like? I like to win, if people like taking units they know are inferior ( ethereals, flashgits etc) and then units I select ( units they may select to) perform better, how does this make me a jerk?

In my point of view, what did that player expect? Is a gamer social contract that I am not familiar with?

I agree that it's not (in general) being a jerk to take good units or strong army lists.

That being said, if the group you are gaming with has established social norms/effective "house rules' about the kinds of armies they like and want to see, then it CAN be offensive to knowingly violate and disregard those social norms.

A successful approach with those kind of gamers is often to initially water down your lists to match their culture, then once you have made some friends and identified the more competitive people in the group, ask them to try out a few "hard core" or "tournament preparation" games with you, using harder lists. If you get their agreement and consent, you avoid being "that guy". And you may even succeed in showing them that tougher lists are just as fun or even more fun to run, and converting some or all of the group to a more competitive mode of play.

I really don't think anyone who plays any game *doesn't* wish to win. But there are people out there who *need* to win every single game. Those are the people who have to buy casino dice because according to their exhaustive studies, regular dice are inherently inaccurate. Or the people who will exhaustively mathhammer the stats of all of their units to make the most statistically destructive spam lists from their codex. Or the people who can't have any fun at even a friendly game because they are refereeing and rules lawyering the life out of the game. Or the people who tell new players that they are too competitive to waste the time of playing a newbie, because their reputation would depend on it.

Long story short, it's a freaking game! Have fun! If winning is your goal, congratulations, you are a human! If winning is all that validates your life and losing a game is obviously because the rules/dice/rotation of the earth suck, then get a life!

Mannahnin wrote:I agree that it's not (in general) being a jerk to take good units or strong army lists.

That being said, if the group you are gaming with has established social norms/effective "house rules' about the kinds of armies they like and want to see, then it CAN be offensive to knowingly violate and disregard those social norms.

A successful approach with those kind of gamers is often to initially water down your lists to match their culture, then once you have made some friends and identified the more competitive people in the group, ask them to try out a few "hard core" or "tournament preparation" games with you, using harder lists. If you get their agreement and consent, you avoid being "that guy". And you may even succeed in showing them that tougher lists are just as fun or even more fun to run, and converting some or all of the group to a more competitive mode of play.

I agree with this Mannahin. I will definatly try this out. Ill have multiple lists and pick a different one depending on who I play against, and the mindset behind the game.

I pick a list based on the opponent and showing off my nicer-looking stuff pretty much whenever I'm plkaying someone new (unless it's in a tournament).

Recently I met a new gamer in my town for a pickup game, and I deliberately chose a non-optimized army list designed to showcase a wide variety of my better-painted units. He brought a reasonably strong army, but one that my regular list would probably have slaughtered. I didn't have to "hold back" at all, and used what I had to the best of my avility. We had a great, competitive game.

I hope it brings you much success. I've had good luck with it, and in some cases found out that a given unit or combination I tried out was better than I had previously thought! So I learned from it too.

Again thanks to every one for all of your help. It will take me some time to get more models etc ( I just started 40k not to long ago, and ended up switching armies) until then Would you recommend that I just not play, or ask if proxy is ok with my opponents?

For me it's when the plausibility (in the fluffy sense) gets broken.

If I can't imagine your chosen army/race doing what you're doing... then is when I will get bothered

Not wrong but certainly within my right to avoid playing against you if I don't like your style as a fluff player. Since I play for fun if you can't also bring some fun with the WAAC attitude it's not worth my time.

jacetms87 wrote:@Grakmar.
If players like taking sub optimal units, that is fine, it is there choice. Does it make me a jerk to bring units that I like? I like to win, if people like taking units they know are inferior ( ethereals, flashgits etc) and then units I select ( units they may select to) perform better, how does this make me a jerk?

In my point of view, what did that player expect? Is a gamer social contract that I am not familiar with?

I'm not saying you are a jerk. I'm saying other people may think you're a jerk.

Bringing a highly competitive list to a casual environment isn't wrong or being TFG. But, it sets you up to play some really one-sided, boring games.

Think of it in terms of D&D. You join a group that really likes to role-play and have fun, and you show up with a character who is a complete munchkin and absolutely min-max'ed. You're not breaking any rules, but you are breaking the spirit of the playgroup.

There's nothing wrong with being a highly competitive player that wants to WAAC (within the confines of the rules), just like there's nothing wrong with being a casual player who likes the social aspects of the game and relaxing. But, when the two mix, no one really gets what they want.

If you're dead-set on playing competitively and the rest of the playgroup isn't, it's time to find a new playgroup.

jacetms87 wrote:Again thanks to every one for all of your help. It will take me some time to get more models etc ( I just started 40k not to long ago, and ended up switching armies) until then Would you recommend that I just not play, or ask if proxy is ok with my opponents?

A little bit of proxying is usually okay in friendly games. Or you could play a smaller game. In that game I just mentioned we were only playing 1000pts, so I switched the power on my daemon prince to be something less-awesome, dropped the second HQ, and dropped most of my duplicated units, so I had a kind of "one of everything'-type list.

@Henners91 We will have to agree to disagree on that point. I personally do not care if any army is not "fluffy".

For me they are separate entities. The fluff is very entertaining for me ( I play Orks) but I will not be constrained on what I can field based on it. I believe that is very biased in terms of table top play for certain armies.

That being said if someone wants to play their list according to fluff, that is great. It is just something I will not choose to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Grakmar

Ahh thank you for that clarification sorry about that misunderstanding.

Nope, wanting to win at all costs is.

To me WAAC is all about attitude. If you throw a tantrum when you lose, you are a WAAC player. If you are disappointed but get over it, you are not a WAAC player.

A lot of the negative feeling can also come from "arms races" where a friend buys a unit that creams the pants out of everything and anything you can muster, everytime you play, so you go out and buy a unit that will crush the crap out of that unit and that unit alone and take it everytime you play him. You just invalidated what was likely his favourite unit, as well as a potentially large amount of money on his part. The arm races stops when one person either runs out of cash, or just gets sick of losing due to a lack of a counter.

I've seen it happen in magic groups a lot, a new comes in, bringing a deck that is head and shoulders above everyone elses, then people start upgrading their decks, and eventually the people without the means to constantly buy new cards/units just quit because it's highly unlikely they'll win.

I think that kind of has a lot to do with it.

Deep down, we all want to win. Even if yOu take a fluff heavy army, you will still want it to do well. Nobody likes getting properly paneled! However, if you choose to play in the spirit of the game you will have more fun!
Players who bend the rules or who find ways around the wording of the rules really just need to get out more.
I saw a 'Daily Tip' on Beasts of War the other day that allows you to take advantage of your heavy cover save by speeding out your squad so that half is in cover and the other half, preferably the half with the heavy weapon/special weapon is stood out in the open. This leads to you getting better LOS with your more shooty troops but it also allows you to use the cover save. Cheesy? Absolutely. Rule bending? Yup.
But by the letter of the rules, entirely legal.

Is wanting to win wrong? Only if you're playing against me!

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Deep down, we all want to win. Even if yOu take a fluff heavy army, you will still want it to do well. Nobody likes getting properly paneled! However, if you choose to play in the spirit of the game you will have more fun!
Players who bend the rules or who find ways around the wording of the rules really just need to get out more.

QFT

As soon as you play a 'game' you are in a win/lose/draw situation. And i would have though in 99.9% of people, even if they aren't seemingly bothered by not winning, still want to or like winning. (otherwise, why not just parade your models around and talk about fluff?)

WAAC people are strange. Yes people want to win, some more than others. But its a game, most people (including competitive list players) are playing to have fun, some people find winning quite fun in itself, some people will find the tactics fun, fluff, models etc etc. But WAAC people playing 40k (or other individual games like that) are only doing it for themselves (Sport in general, you have supporters etc that you are trying to please, so cheating etc can at least be justified that way, or money), which just seems a bit sad to me.

I like to win, when i win it makes me happy to an extent (although not as much as when Norwich City win ) but i don't get in a strop if i lose, i might be a bit downhearted if i thought i should have won, but still i played a game of 40k against a decent person (only ever played 1/2 TFG type people). So wanting to win is not wrong at all, but to take winning as the only aspect of the 40k hobby is a bit strange and sad.

I would say it's borderline psychotic to engage in what is ultimately a "contest" and not wish to "win". I feel like there is part of some strange trend toward embracing mediocrity with this seemingly constant deliberation over the 'right/wrong' of winning and losing. Shouldn't you want to excel? Why are you afraid of success?

I don't get comp. I don't get forcing people to tie one hand behind their back. I mean, I guess if you're such an amazing player that you can win like that and prefer to give yourself a handicap, then that's your prerogative, but there's a difference between 'putting 40k on hard mode' and willfully poisoning your success. And I CERTAINLY would not expect my opponent to reciprocate a handicap.

Now, like with everything, there are exceptions. I've thought things sucked on paper but decided to give them a shot. I've run Ogryn. I've even run Penal Legion. But that wasn't because I thought winning was bad. It was to see if under-appreciated units might give me a long term edge if I could find hidden value in them. It was the 40k equivalent of R&D.

@deadalus I totally agree with you. I will not hamstring what I play for my enjoyment based on the feeling of others that my army does not conform to what they think it should be.

Winning is the name of the game.

I never go into even a casual game not expecting to try and win. It isn't fair to your opponent if you do that.

In tournaments it's expected that you will try and win at all costs as long as you follow the rules and peculiarities of the contest.

However, doing this time and again will not endear you to your fellows at the local game shop or friends you invite to private games. Most of the guys and gals I game with regularly like to see variation and give kudos when you try something different. It's in these enviroments where winning isn't necessarily everything and sometimes it's more important that everyone has a good time.

This is also why my game group tends to play campaigns. There is a certain amount of 'role-play' and story weaving going on, so a defeat can add something to the whole experience rather than just take away your pride.

I completely agree with you Uhlan. I'm always trying new things to try to improve my overall game, but that doesn't mean that I'm not trying to win 100%. Though you used that phrase again, and I'm still saying that it's not expected that you win at all costs at a tournament. Most of the 'at all costs' part of it would probably get you DQ'ed, in fact.

I like campaigns also. We did one that was 1000 points of SM and 1000 points of IG against 2750 of Tau. My side wasn't supposed to 'win'. It was the opening game that set the stage and we were only supposed to hold them off and eliminate targets of importance to cause as much casualty to the Tau as possible. We still had an objective and I'd like to think that we succeeded.