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.

Poppabear wrote:People who play to WAAC have some sort of issue. If you want to win, go play MW3 or BF3, while we sit here and play a hobby that is made for fun.. Quote (I think this is from jervis) "GW games arn't made to play competitivly, their made to have fun with your friends. (Something around the lines of that at least)

As you are not playing MW3 or BF3, you must not want to win. So why do you care if the other guy wants to win?

If he wins, and you don't care about losing there is no problem, right?

Jidmah wrote:

Poppabear wrote:People who play to WAAC have some sort of issue. If you want to win, go play MW3 or BF3, while we sit here and play a hobby that is made for fun.. Quote (I think this is from jervis) "GW games arn't made to play competitivly, their made to have fun with your friends. (Something around the lines of that at least)

As you are not playing MW3 or BF3, you must not want to win. So why do you care if the other guy wants to win?

If he wins, and you don't care about losing there is no problem, right?

There's no problem with winning (after all, it'd just be D&D if people wanted to play a game without any way of beating the other players) but there is a problem with winning at all costs.
I'll admit, the difference can be subtle, but it's still an important one. A guy with a powerful list who likes, say, to bring out his older and less competitive army because he likes the nostalgia or knows it's still good, just not 'ard as nails, is still capable of winning and indeed may do so. Sure, he enjoys winning but it's not the be-all and end-all of the hobby for him. A WAAC guy will never deviate from his one list, will use every trick in the book to win, and if that means the opponent doesn't enjoy the game, well, so be it.
It just seems like a mean-spirited way to play WH40K.

The main problem is that people wrongly confuse WAAC with competitive, when they on the whole are very different.

When playing almost any game the primary objective is to win.

The main secondary objective is to for everybody to have fun.

Now for most people (almost everyone really) the second objective is about as important as the first one, but that does not mean that you can't play to win and still have fun.

What Waac people do is take that competitive mentality one step further and bend rules/cheat/list tailor, these people are however very few and far between.

What is fun for one person may not be as fun for another, and you need to talk to people before the game to see how your opinions match up.

I prefer to play 'non optimized' lists, because they strike me as more 'realistic' - when realism is considered within the scope of the defined universe. Obviously, we know that flying tanks aren't real, and that people wouldn't really attack a flying tank with a giant powered fist... but the game text describes a universe in which most Marines follow the teachings of the Codex: Astartes, in which Firewarriors make up the bulk of the Tau forces, and in which Eldrad leads the Ulthwe craftworld, not every craftworld.

I also find that these non-optimized lists create more enjoyable, and more tactical tabletop games that are every bit as competitive during gameplay as those involving so-called optimized lists.

When spammed lists take the table, there isn't a lot of thought that goes into placement. Since the units are all essentially the same, there are no considerations for making the most of each unit's advantages, or minimizing its disadvantages. And, all too often, playing out the games is just an application of math. Target priority means less because so many of the targets are the same. Decisions mean less, and dice-rolling means more, and the battles are decided by who is making more of their rolls (and, often, who has the more powerful spammed list).

That's not something I really enjoy playing. You might win more games by fielding more of the same powerful stuff, but I find that the games are lacking. I'd rather have to decide what gets sacrificed to get something else in position. I'd rather be faced with a decision about which unit I should be targeting that's more complex than which one is slightly closer at the moment.

Jangustus wrote:The main problem is that people wrongly confuse WAAC with competitive, when they on the whole are very different.

A competitive player loves a challenge, and if he had something as ridiculous as a 20:1 win/loss ratio, he'd change his list up until he got closer to 1:1. Because it's more fun when you really have to work to win.

The OP is clearly not in this category. He is WAAC.

WAAC is not about bending the rules or cheating or taking advantage of loopholes. It is about winning, without regard to your opponent. Now, this isn't to say you shouldn't beat your opponent because it might make them feel bad. It means before, during and after the game you should be asking yourself 'is my opponent going to enjoy himself?'.

Theres no accounting for bad losers. As much as it's your job to ensure your opponent has a good time, it's his job to win (or lose) with magnanimity. But no one enjoys being stomped into the ground for the 19th time in a row. When that starts happening, as the better player it is your responsibility to reduce the power in your list to give your opponent a fighting chance.

WAAC isn't about cheating or taking advantage. that would be TFG

Though be careful, they can be pretty hard to tell apart.

I just take units that are to my liking and then see how they do on the board and learn how to use them effectively. I don't want a list that is "guaranteed" to win, that's just boring and I have seen way too many armies like that. I want a list tailored to my liking with units I like that I can just have fun with. And if I meet a WAAC list, then fun! I'd like to see if I can out think and out maneuver my opponent's WAAC list and pull off a win. I men. what's the fun in winning if it didn't take effort?

I can really see both sides. I dunno, I guess it really depends on the person I'm playing against. If they're uber-competitive, then I'll be as well, and if the person's just playing for lulz, I will too.

That being said, I've only ever won once, with Orks against Eldar some time in September (I think).

ive developed lists over time my group has had trouble playing against... my orc trukk rush, ig gunlines, and recently DE venomspam. the last list involved close to 30 straight wins, and not close ones either. all were pretty decisive. as such i have mutually agreed to not play my venomspam list unless requested or in tourneys. to "dumb it down" i generally try to take some wyches on raiders instead of all warriors on venoms, i might even sub out a troop selection for something like hellions or bikes. just to add more "global focus" to the list, instead of spamming 3 units. the results are usually a win, but its a lot closer most times.

some people just cant beat certain lists. we have taken to doing swap matches. play one game, then switch army lists and play again. not to mention a constant conversation about how to beat each others armies and brainstorming new ideas. afterall the game is supposed to be fun... and its definitly NOT fun getting your ace kicked all over the place every game

I occasionally play apoc games running 2000 points in one uber squad which always survives, but only takes about 500 points in a game. Why? It's funny as hell to be fielding most of your army as one squad.
For me, it's less by how much you floor the opponent, but by how funny/interesting it is. I've played games where I was doomed from the start and genuinely had a great time, and I've had games where I've tabled someone by turn 4 and I didn't like it. For me, it's as much (if not more) about the opponent you're playing than how much you win by, what army list you're fielding or even your tactics.
(wall of text)

my point is, I find the best things for a "fun" game are primarily a fun opponent, and secondarily a funny army (list/paintjob/conversions etc.)

I have one goal in every game I play.

Something has to explode. I don't care if it was my 210 point Battlewagon, an enemy Rhino, or a Wierdboy'z head. Something's gotta go "BOOM". This is part of the reason I field Tankbustas- if nothing else, they're good at making explosions happen.

Good rule that

I'm competitive. I enjoy a close game against someone else who is bringing their best. Baring that I enjoy losing to someone better and learning from the experience. I have a rough idea what my win% is against other good players and in tournaments. I also regularly discuss tactics and list building on forums.

If I'm playing someone new to the game or someone I know is not a competitive/tournament player then I'll tone my list down and/or help teach them the game. I don't want to blow someone out of the water that isn't looking for that type of game.

The best thing you can do, and there has been whole threads on it, is talk to your opponent before the match and discuss what you want out of the game. Whether its tournament practice, teaching someone new, or a fluffy narrative battle you need to make sure you and your opponent are on the same page. There is only so much you can blame your opponent for you not having fun.

In the last six months, I have played five games of 40k, two of them being apoc games. I am a university student, have a full time job and girlfriend to keep me too busy to play regularly. I do; however, have time to paint (a few hours here and there as opposed to a full evening for gaming). I build and convert the models that I like, and build armies because of the fluff and models. I am not going to buy or build models that I don't like just because they are good right now. I don't play enough to care about building the best list. If I like the models and the fluff, I build and paint a fluffy army.

In case you were wondering, I play mono-god chaos space marines, mono god chaos daemons, traitor guard, and tyranids.

I enjoy the background of an army, so I abse my army around that not what wins game. I don't care about winning. Winning while your opponent is not having fun is not a very good thing is it? Exploiting a codex for the best options in a friendly game is not a very good idea because your opponent won't be having fun. You want both sides to have fun and if your friend gets a new powerful codex and he is beating you alot, you won't have fun. Bring what you like, not what you find to be "powerful".

Non-optimized lists and often completely thoughtless lists can also lead to extreme hilarity! An example of my experience:

One of my friends assaulted and blew up my Chimera with Noise Marines and my vets inside didn't die at all. Next turn he says, "What kind of weapons do they have anyways? A Lascannon to fire from the Chimera?"

"Nope. Flamers!"

"How many?"

"Looks like 4. And a heavy flamer. Flame on."

Lots of crispy Marines that round. So why fill a Chimera with vets with nothing but flamers and lasguns? I felt a little pyro that day, not sure why. But hilarity ensued!