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.

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

So you go to a tournament and you're penalized for bringing the best list you cam, or at minimum a stupidly capable.

 Corrode wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

Sportsmanship should never be a commentary on list composition, but instead on the other players behavior at the table. This is frequently not the case, and why it has largely fallen out of favor. Too many people take losing badly as a knock against their opponents sportsmanship. These people have obviously never competed in say sports if they feel that way. It also frequently got used to "chipmunk" players so that they could get their buddies to win the event.

Yeah we used to do sportsmanship votes at the tournaments I ran (you didn't get points but we had a separate trophy for whoever got the highest number), and it was remarkable how many times people's favourite game was against the guy they hammered off the table. Sports scores also suffer from the obvious problem that in a room of 70 guys, you'll only play 5 or 6 - and since most people are fairly neutral, it only takes one or two personality clashes to undeservedly tank someone's sportsmanship score.

Yup that is very often the case. I tend to be the opposite, my best favorite is very often one that I lose (not always). For me it is usually the closest game of the day. But I also never knock people that table me unless they rub it in and act like jerks.

auticus wrote:IMO this thread has derailed into the classic narrative vs waac style.

Which is a shame.

This thread is specifically about waac play. If you are a narrative-only player, its not a context that applies to you. Trying to push the narrative playstyle to the people that enjoy powergaming is as futile as taking a whiz into a strong wind.

Lets not worry about the tournament players playing waac... thats kind of the point of the tournament playstyle.

No, it is not. Being WAAC and being competitive are two separate things. A true WAAC player will flip the table rather then let someone get Checkmate. "All Costs" being a case of ignoring any consequences for the actions they take in order to win. Competitive allows for the rules and wining within those rules.

Denying SCs that you don't know how to counter would be WAAC, just as insisting to use SCs that you do have would be considered WAAC.

Figuring out how to counter SCs is being competitive. At this time, the game considers them to be one unit among many, a unit that you cannot spam. Which is worse, one greatly OP model or being able to spam one rather OP that is difficult to counter in pairs or more?

The issue here is that competitive people want those OP models to be balanced so they won't be accused of being WAAC or for feeling bad for taking a strong unit. That is hardly a WAAC perspective.

The "what is waac" argument has been done to death. I am specifically describing powergamers and min/max playstyle, where they will never take anything less than full optimal.

To many people that is the same as "at all costs". Arguing the term however will never get us anywhere because it will always be seen by different people as having different meanings.

Regardless - don't whine about powergaming in a powergaming thread lol.

 auticus wrote:
IMO this thread has derailed into the classic narrative vs waac style.
Which is a shame.
This thread is specifically about waac play. If you are a narrative-only player, its not a context that applies to you. Trying to push the narrative playstyle to the people that enjoy powergaming is as futile as taking a whiz into a strong wind.
Lets not worry about the tournament players playing waac... thats kind of the point of the tournament playstyle.

You seem a little confused on what WAAC means, I will refer to this site for a fairly good definition:

http://lxg-blog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/what-is-waac.html

The Cheater -
Come on, did you really expect anyone else? This guy is generally accept by everyone as a WAAC player.  There's a bunch of ways to fit into this category:  Intentional mis-measuring, intentional "forgetting" of rules, sweeping dice before your opponent can tell you told him you made more saves than you did, to even using loaded dice or incorrect measuring devices.  This guy is no good, and ruins games for everybody, because it's all about him.  Once you identify the Cheater, your best bet is to simply ban them from playing with your group (if you have the authority) or refuse to play them yourself.

The Ultra Competitive Player-

Spoiler:

Strike First. Strike Hard. No Mercy. The Ultra Competitive Player, or UCP for short, is the guy who lives and breathes for tournament play.  His belief is often that "if it's legal, it's playable, so don't complain if I use it."  The UCP is often- but not always- in the realm of "over powered," "cheese lists," and "Rules as Written" loophole tricks. To less competitive players, they may sometimes appear "WAAC,"  which as discussed above is incorrect- they just play their game a different way than you. They are generally the best versed in the rules of the game, have studied every army or faction book simply to know what to expect, and will likely know your own rules better than you do.  As far as banning these guys... there's really no leg to stand on, and for good reason- they're actually not doing anything wrong.  If you know for a fact you're not going to enjoy playing them, then generally don't.  They're pretty easy to avoid, as they tend to play (and want to play) tournaments, tournament players, and people prepping for highly competitive environments- so if you avoid those environments, and politely turn down "friendly" game requests form them, there's really never any likelihood of playing them.

The Competitive Player-     

Spoiler:

The Competitive Player, the CP, is a strange hybrid creature, a duck billed platypus of a gamer.  They are generally a Story player or a Painter/Converter who either grew up surrounded by Ultra Competitive Players and adapted, or they are an Ultra Competitive Player that hamstrings himself by using "fluff based lists" or "rule of cool" models.  This guy is less likely to be considered WAAC, but can stumble into it without realizing it- aiming for a "themed" list and not realizing the underlying theme is "beat the other guy senseless." Competitive players have generally skimmed all the different factions... but not really memorized their rules, more likely just read the stories and looked at pictures. Against other CPs he'll always be a good game.  Against UCPs both players may or may not have fun due to his list not being "strong enough", and against Story Players or Painter/Converters both players may not have fun for the exact opposite reason.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
The "what is waac" argument has been done to death. I am specifically describing powergamers and min/max playstyle, where they will never take anything less than full optimal.
To many people that is the same as "at all costs". Arguing the term however will never get us anywhere because it will always be seen by different people as having different meanings.
Regardless - don't whine about powergaming in a powergaming thread lol.

Doubling down.
Win... At... All... Costs.
NOT the same.
A power-gamer will get very upset if you lump him in as someone who will intentionally cheat or ignore rules.
NO.
"Full optimal" is within the rules of the game full-stop.

Here is a quote that is rather telling in this criticism:

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.ca/2010/06/win-at-all-costs-in-action-misused.html

...Here's something super important - none of the above says a damned thing about their attitude toward gaming and competition, and whether or not they are "Win At All Costs." It is so critically important that you all understand this when attending a tournament (especially one with such a variety of attendance as, say, the NOVA Open). If you don't, if you're incapable of enough deep/critical thought to recognize that a person's LIST does not reflect upon their CHARACTER by any necessary connection ... well, you'll be "that guy." YOU'LL be the Win At All Costs. Because when you lose a game, and instead of congratulating your opponent on the win ... you simply call his army cheesy, or wander around the hall complaining about how broken your opponent(s)' lists were ... well, that's just you attempting to "win" after all. I hope you realize this.

I think to bring this full circle on-topic: removing special characters will not do a thing to the nature of competitive play: what the heck are you trying to fix?

In this edition of less customization for models and auras being the game changer, characters are more important than ever.

Moreso, they have models with wargear included, and with GWs new Rules to Models policy, this is why they see the best rules.

I'm not confused at all i'm using waac as a synonym for powergamer. I use cheater as the word of choice for someone that cheats.

We can ride the pedantic bus to argue conjugation but really, it won't change anything

 auticus wrote:
We can ride the pedantic bus to argue conjugation but really, it won't change anything

Not quite. Being called "WAAC" or even "power gamer" can be seen as derogatory, and there are rules about calling people that here in the forum. So, best not to lump "competitive" in with "WAAC", okay?

Note, I'm not saying "WAAC" players aren't also "competitive", but the majority of "competitive" players aren't looking for loopholes, easter eggs, or out-right false-word-smithing in order to win a game.

 Talizvar wrote:
Total answer to that is "because the rules allow it."
How does configuring your army the best you can, automatically become a sportsmanship issue?

Seems rather unfair.

Wiki: Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors. A "sore loser" refers to one who does not take defeat well, whereas a "good sport" means being a "good winner" as well as being a "good loser"[1][2] (someone who shows courtesy towards another in a sports game).

If the person allows you to correct an honest mistake, is generous when the situation or rules are not clear, you will penalize them because you do not "like" their army configuration?
I figure we should reward good behavior, I will take a pleasant person over them making a fluffier army list any day.

Seems the concepts of "ethos" and "for its own sake" have gone over your head...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

Sportsmanship should never be a commentary on list composition, but instead on the other players behavior at the table. This is frequently not the case, and why it has largely fallen out of favor. Too many people take losing badly as a knock against their opponents sportsmanship. These people have obviously never competed in say sports if they feel that way. It also frequently got used to "chipmunk" players so that they could get their buddies to win the event.

Why shouldn't sportsmanship include what one brings to the table?
Look at John Jones, out of the UFC for what he brought into the ring.
How is getting all juiced up on spammy SCs any different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

So you go to a tournament and you're penalized for bringing the best list you cam, or at minimum a stupidly capable.

No, people are judged poorly for bringing cardboard cutout SCs and netlist hotness that they paid someone else to paint...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
The "what is waac" argument has been done to death. I am specifically describing powergamers and min/max playstyle, where they will never take anything less than full optimal.

To many people that is the same as "at all costs". Arguing the term however will never get us anywhere because it will always be seen by different people as having different meanings.

Regardless - don't whine about powergaming in a powergaming thread lol.

My point is that power can be defined in different ways.
Exploiting half-baked rules systems to win using SCs and spam is not a show of power imho.
It is a sign of intellectual weakness.
Winning like that is like getting the front seat on the short bus...
Yeay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 auticus wrote:
We can ride the pedantic bus to argue conjugation but really, it won't change anything

Not quite. Being called "WAAC" or even "power gamer" can be seen as derogatory, and there are rules about calling people that here in the forum. So, best not to lump "competitive" in with "WAAC", okay?

Note, I'm not saying "WAAC" players aren't also "competitive", but the majority of "competitive" players aren't looking for loopholes, easter eggs, or out-right false-word-smithing in order to win a game.

OK, I am calling BS here, man.
If this weren't the case, then why would so many people be so interested in stacking so many SCs from different backgrounds into single armies, or fielding nothing but characters so that they must be individually targeted, or understanding that 10 Xs allow one to do ABC 10 times a turn, to win games.
This is hobby at the expense of winning, and for me this is winning at all costs, because what is really redeeming about this hobby is all set aside in order to WIN.
And that means, for me, sportsmanship is also a casualty, before the player ever hits the table.
Taking a grenade launcher to a gunfight might be strictly within the rules, but it is still poor form and - in my opinion - a sign of weakness.

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

And this is exactly why sportsmanship scores are bad.

How is making a perfectly legal army unsporting?

That is just you docking them points for not following the army composition rules you have in your head.

ERJAK wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you're bored there's several missions you can play and then Maelstrom. What these "formats" are is garbage attempts at fixing a problem, and that's all they were ever proposed as. Nothing more, nothing less. So there's nothing wrong with me.

Missing the point that people that want to shift the status quo of list building. regardless of missions considering people still play them all and it still can get old when several types of characters are auto takes or unit spam or whatever.

the point of the formats isnt to FIX anything its just to do something different

your problem is that you dont like it so you call it garbage.

The status quo of list building is huge bricks of conscripts, spammable 'generic' characters (malefic lord, Culexus wall) spammable guard bullgak, spammable chaos bullgak and Guillamen. Even Celestine is just an afterthought for the most part.

Banning special characters hurts mono-faction armies WAY more than it hurts soup armies. Ban Celestine and guard just takes 50 more conscripts, no big whoop. SoB on the other hand can pack up and go home because building a competitive SoB list without her is fething impossible. You end up with 2 extra canonesses you don't even take out of your carrying case hoping desperately your opponent doesn't notice they're missing because they're worth less to the way your army functions than the +1 to go first and you can't put them in a transport because they feth up your dominions.

That sounds more like an issue with the faction and not competitive play/list-building itself. Hinging how an army works on a single Special character only makes sense if it actually opens up a unique way to build the faction or represent it in a meaningful way through gameplay/tactics.

But anyway, isn't what Desubot talking about somethign that has been discussed in our own community? No Special Characters in a specific format? It's no different from what I can see.

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

This is why I dislike tournaments. Sportsman score and Army Comp score are two completely different things.

If you faced someone who was the best opponent you've ever played a game with, the whole way through was enjoyable, entertaining and a laugh without a doubt the best game of 40k you've ever played - would you give them a 0 for sportsmanship? No you wouldn't. neg the crap out of their army comp score for sure, but the sporting part of it shouldn't suffer for it

(yes I realise the irony of playing a game being tabled by a 0 comp score army somehow being the most enjoyable game you've had - but the point still stands)

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

This is why I dislike tournaments. Sportsman score and Army Comp score are two completely different things.

If you faced someone who was the best opponent you've ever played a game with, the whole way through was enjoyable, entertaining and a laugh without a doubt the best game of 40k you've ever played - would you give them a 0 for sportsmanship? No you wouldn't. neg the crap out of their army comp score for sure, but the sporting part of it shouldn't suffer for it

(yes I realise the irony of playing a game being tabled by a 0 comp score army somehow being the most enjoyable game you've had - but the point still stands)

Point taken.

However, just as with the John Jones example, I feel that sportsmanship begins before the game actually begins.
Army composition, sure, but are "competitive" people scoring down other players when they bring SCs and spam loophole-exploiters?
From the feedback in this thread, alone, it seems that it is a point of pride.
Again, it seems that the mindset is one of MtG players.

For someone apparently focused on sportsmanship and 'mutualy enjoyable' games you seem to have a vast repertoire of insults and caricatures for people who play differently to you.

 jeff white wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Total answer to that is "because the rules allow it."
How does configuring your army the best you can, automatically become a sportsmanship issue?

Seems rather unfair.

Wiki: Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors. A "sore loser" refers to one who does not take defeat well, whereas a "good sport" means being a "good winner" as well as being a "good loser"[1][2] (someone who shows courtesy towards another in a sports game).

If the person allows you to correct an honest mistake, is generous when the situation or rules are not clear, you will penalize them because you do not "like" their army configuration?
I figure we should reward good behavior, I will take a pleasant person over them making a fluffier army list any day.

Seems the concepts of "ethos" and "for its own sake" have gone over your head...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

Sportsmanship should never be a commentary on list composition, but instead on the other players behavior at the table. This is frequently not the case, and why it has largely fallen out of favor. Too many people take losing badly as a knock against their opponents sportsmanship. These people have obviously never competed in say sports if they feel that way. It also frequently got used to "chipmunk" players so that they could get their buddies to win the event.

Why shouldn't sportsmanship include what one brings to the table?
Look at John Jones, out of the UFC for what he brought into the ring.
How is getting all juiced up on spammy SCs any different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

So you go to a tournament and you're penalized for bringing the best list you cam, or at minimum a stupidly capable.

No, people are judged poorly for bringing cardboard cutout SCs and netlist hotness that they paid someone else to paint...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
The "what is waac" argument has been done to death. I am specifically describing powergamers and min/max playstyle, where they will never take anything less than full optimal.

To many people that is the same as "at all costs". Arguing the term however will never get us anywhere because it will always be seen by different people as having different meanings.

Regardless - don't whine about powergaming in a powergaming thread lol.

My point is that power can be defined in different ways.
Exploiting half-baked rules systems to win using SCs and spam is not a show of power imho.
It is a sign of intellectual weakness.
Winning like that is like getting the front seat on the short bus...
Yeay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 auticus wrote:
We can ride the pedantic bus to argue conjugation but really, it won't change anything

Not quite. Being called "WAAC" or even "power gamer" can be seen as derogatory, and there are rules about calling people that here in the forum. So, best not to lump "competitive" in with "WAAC", okay?

Note, I'm not saying "WAAC" players aren't also "competitive", but the majority of "competitive" players aren't looking for loopholes, easter eggs, or out-right false-word-smithing in order to win a game.

OK, I am calling BS here, man.
If this weren't the case, then why would so many people be so interested in stacking so many SCs from different backgrounds into single armies, or fielding nothing but characters so that they must be individually targeted, or understanding that 10 Xs allow one to do ABC 10 times a turn, to win games.
This is hobby at the expense of winning, and for me this is winning at all costs, because what is really redeeming about this hobby is all set aside in order to WIN.
And that means, for me, sportsmanship is also a casualty, before the player ever hits the table.
Taking a grenade launcher to a gunfight might be strictly within the rules, but it is still poor form and - in my opinion - a sign of weakness.

Okay, so let me get this straight:
1. You would dock points out of principle on a sportsmanship score because you don't like their army composition, even though that has nothing to do with sportsmanship at all.
2. You compare bringing a list you want to flatout cheating. You have every opportunity to train the same manner as everyone else in the same way you have the ability to create your army the way you wish, which you equate to using steroids. That's actually using things like weighted dice. So you don't understand how similes or metaphors work in your examples.
3. You accuse using Special Characters as netlisting, even though it's maybe only the same few that actually show up amongst what is mostly generic characters as seen in tournament results (Roboute and Celestine showed up, saw Arkos in a few lists, and basically nobody else for special characters). To you that's netlisting, instead of acknowledging the few characters are maybe miscosted.
4. You then insult people that pay for their armies to be painted, when there s legitimate reasons to not paint your army (Like you might have too unsteady hands or you just suck at it), and decide that all these people are also incapable of painting their own armies with literally NO data to back you up whatsoever. They could've actually taken pride in their models done a good job, but heaven forbid that thought because they're not playing YOUR way.
5. You're not using tournament results to back up your claims. Again.
6. People like the fluff for those characters and want to use them? Tell me why I shouldn't use Tyberos and Asterion in the same army when they've actually FOUGHT together anyway (like for Badab) and don't do anything but benefit their own chapters anyway in separate Detachments. Once again you're deciding that, because people won't play your way, it's all WAAC. In reality, you're a bad player who can't bother to even counter characters like them. This is your own fault and complete intellectual laziness on YOUR end. You refusing to adapt to actual fair characters is weakness, not the other way around.

So what? You lost to Khan one day and your feelings are so hurt you can't maybe look past your own army list construction and/or playing? Is it they're playing unfair, or you're just a bad player? I'm doubting you have any results to back yourself up on that end.

 jeff white wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

This is why I dislike tournaments. Sportsman score and Army Comp score are two completely different things.

If you faced someone who was the best opponent you've ever played a game with, the whole way through was enjoyable, entertaining and a laugh without a doubt the best game of 40k you've ever played - would you give them a 0 for sportsmanship? No you wouldn't. neg the crap out of their army comp score for sure, but the sporting part of it shouldn't suffer for it

(yes I realise the irony of playing a game being tabled by a 0 comp score army somehow being the most enjoyable game you've had - but the point still stands)

Point taken.

However, just as with the John Jones example, I feel that sportsmanship begins before the game actually begins.
Army composition, sure, but are "competitive" people scoring down other players when they bring SCs and spam loophole-exploiters?
From the feedback in this thread, alone, it seems that it is a point of pride.
Again, it seems that the mindset is one of MtG players.

I agree to a point, sportsmanship begins before the game starts but the way the game plays out and your experience within the game largely comes down to the individual. Special characters have nothing to do with your enjoyment of the game. Gulliman getting you down? Learn to counter it.

I have a friend who lives and breathes the tournament scene and he's commonly referred to as the smiling assasin. He's never played a game with a soft list and always chooses the "best" options yet somehow after every game you want to buy him a drink to say thanks for the game - he is that much of a blast to play. Hard armies and sports don't always go hand in hand.

jeff white wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Note, I'm not saying "WAAC" players aren't also "competitive", but the majority of "competitive" players aren't looking for loopholes, easter eggs, or out-right false-word-smithing in order to win a game.

OK, I am calling BS here, man.
If this weren't the case, then why would so many people be so interested in stacking so many SCs from different backgrounds into single armies, or fielding nothing but characters so that they must be individually targeted, or understanding that 10 Xs allow one to do ABC 10 times a turn, to win games.

Apparently you don't seem to understand the concept of the easter egg hunt for rules or using false-word-smithing in order to win a game. Taking every SC your Faction can carry is currently within the rules. That is not WAAC, but can be very competitive. It can also be very Narrative, depending on the army build. That you may not like to face it doesn't automatically mean the player is WAAC.

The sentence you put in bold was more a clarification. All competitive people like to win. In this case, that also applies to the WAAC people as well. The real difference between being "just competitive" and "WAAC" is that the "just competitive" group are willing to accept the loss if the other player gave a good game, while the WAAC player would either rage-quit before he completely lost, cheat, or accuse the other player of cheating in order to claim the win. That's part of what the "at all costs" part of WAAC comes from.

jeff white wrote:Taking a grenade launcher to a gunfight might be strictly within the rules, but it is still poor form and - in my opinion - a sign of weakness.

If you know a person has a grenade launcher, and it is within the rules, then why are you surprised he brought one? Sounds like you are projecting a little by trying to force other players to avoid using units you don't know how to deal with.

There is a difference between wanting a balanced playing field and wanting a playing field balanced to your specific parameters of what you want it to look like, and some people seem to confuse the two.

 Charistoph wrote:

jeff white wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Note, I'm not saying "WAAC" players aren't also "competitive", but the majority of "competitive" players aren't looking for loopholes, easter eggs, or out-right false-word-smithing in order to win a game.

OK, I am calling BS here, man.
If this weren't the case, then why would so many people be so interested in stacking so many SCs from different backgrounds into single armies, or fielding nothing but characters so that they must be individually targeted, or understanding that 10 Xs allow one to do ABC 10 times a turn, to win games.

Apparently you don't seem to understand the concept of the easter egg hunt for rules or using false-word-smithing in order to win a game. Taking every SC your Faction can carry is currently within the rules. That is not WAAC, but can be very competitive. It can also be very Narrative, depending on the army build. That you may not like to face it doesn't automatically mean the player is WAAC.

The sentence you put in bold was more a clarification. All competitive people like to win. In this case, that also applies to the WAAC people as well. The real difference between being "just competitive" and "WAAC" is that the "just competitive" group are willing to accept the loss if the other player gave a good game, while the WAAC player would either rage-quit before he completely lost, cheat, or accuse the other player of cheating in order to claim the win. That's part of what the "at all costs" part of WAAC comes from.

jeff white wrote:Taking a grenade launcher to a gunfight might be strictly within the rules, but it is still poor form and - in my opinion - a sign of weakness.

If you know a person has a grenade launcher, and it is within the rules, then why are you surprised he brought one? Sounds like you are projecting a little by trying to force other players to avoid using units you don't know how to deal with.

Oh it is not a mystery how to counter op SC "builds"...
Wait for rules corrections and nerf bats to shift model sales is maybe the easiest way.
Read about and learn from other experience then spend a ton of time and money " building" the new hotness which is hot simply because it does counter said op SC spam soup "builds" chasing the plastic dragon seems to be the most common "competitive" way to go about it.

What is a mystery to me is how anyone could feel proud of winning while using such " builds".
Where is the virtue in that, this is the mystery to me.
And yes, if you can't paint due to unsteady hands then your career as a best of the best hobbyist is over.
Happening to me, at my age I can hardly see straight let alone paint at the level of detail that I could as a youth.
I am not complaining and don't mind losing.
I don't set out to lose but I learned not to set out to win every game either.
That is not the purpose of the game and hobby for me.
That is also not how I would define competitive play, just winning every game given halfbaked profit driven rules especially.

I did attend one grand tourney in I think it was 1998.
I lost most of my games, but I will never forget it.
The trivia tests, the scoring, the gw staff wandering about asking questions.
The winners were of various categories, and winning every game was only one of them.
At that time, one could compete in different ways, and in a general way as a hobbyist.
I was only a few years into the hobby at that time and without time and money and in all seriousness without talent to be the best at any of them.
I did work harder going forward to get better in those various ways and that tournament experience taught me most about what the hobby really entails.
It is or at least was a lot more than chasing the plastic dragon for the win.
Maybe I am a bitter old man longing for the better days, or maybe I have a substantial point.
My purpose here is simply to forcefully represent this perspective, and hopefully influence the future direction of the "sport"

In the end I am against SCs in "competitive" play because the practice discounts other aspects of the game and indeed as I understand it the competition that I feel are equally or more important to the hobby and lifestyle.
I am all for changes in the rules that encourage more p!ayer creativity and I am also for rules that demand more structure and force more restrictions on armies that are brought to competitive events as well as that come to be expected in friendly environments.
These days I have so little time I have yet to play a game with anyone in eighth edition.
I have one scheduled with the nearest fellow hobbyist that I am aware of on the other side of Seoul, but that is at least a month away.
I find a couple hours a week at my painting desk, a couple hours at forums, and i play podcasts at the gym and biking and walking the dogs and listen to battle reports as I edit papers and review other stuff for work.
I learn by twenty plus years of experience with other editions. I have played a lot of forty k. I am almost fifty years old and more than half of those have had paint on my thumbs and forefingers.
My investment in this discourse runs much deeper than winning a game.
And I take my position on principle, in the best interests of hobby and hobbyists as best as I can figure them in good conscience.
PS it is interesting to note that a bit more than half of current respondents would want to limit the use of SCs in some way. So this is not a cut and dried issue. Discourse must continue.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

jeff white wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Note, I'm not saying "WAAC" players aren't also "competitive", but the majority of "competitive" players aren't looking for loopholes, easter eggs, or out-right false-word-smithing in order to win a game.

OK, I am calling BS here, man.
If this weren't the case, then why would so many people be so interested in stacking so many SCs from different backgrounds into single armies, or fielding nothing but characters so that they must be individually targeted, or understanding that 10 Xs allow one to do ABC 10 times a turn, to win games.

Apparently you don't seem to understand the concept of the easter egg hunt for rules or using false-word-smithing in order to win a game. Taking every SC your Faction can carry is currently within the rules. That is not WAAC, but can be very competitive. It can also be very Narrative, depending on the army build. That you may not like to face it doesn't automatically mean the player is WAAC.

The sentence you put in bold was more a clarification. All competitive people like to win. In this case, that also applies to the WAAC people as well. The real difference between being "just competitive" and "WAAC" is that the "just competitive" group are willing to accept the loss if the other player gave a good game, while the WAAC player would either rage-quit before he completely lost, cheat, or accuse the other player of cheating in order to claim the win. That's part of what the "at all costs" part of WAAC comes from.

jeff white wrote:Taking a grenade launcher to a gunfight might be strictly within the rules, but it is still poor form and - in my opinion - a sign of weakness.

If you know a person has a grenade launcher, and it is within the rules, then why are you surprised he brought one? Sounds like you are projecting a little by trying to force other players to avoid using units you don't know how to deal with.

O, I am not surprised.
I am just saying that guy is a

So you would rather not take the best tool allowed by the rules of the event and instead limit yourself to the rules that only exist in your head. This, of course, makes you better than the person who does not share your self imposed limitation.

Sounds like a classic case of scrub mentality.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

 jeff white wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

Sportsmanship should never be a commentary on list composition, but instead on the other players behavior at the table. This is frequently not the case, and why it has largely fallen out of favor. Too many people take losing badly as a knock against their opponents sportsmanship. These people have obviously never competed in say sports if they feel that way. It also frequently got used to "chipmunk" players so that they could get their buddies to win the event.

Why shouldn't sportsmanship include what one brings to the table?
Look at John Jones, out of the UFC for what he brought into the ring.
How is getting all juiced up on spammy SCs any different?

Because one is against the rules of the game and the other isn't. What you are saying is Lebron is unsportsmanlike because he brings more tools to the game of basketball than you do. The John Jones comparison would be like someone bringing loaded dice. You literally have no concept of sportsmanship with regards to the rules of the game. If someone brings a legal list they are not being unsporting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

This is why I dislike tournaments. Sportsman score and Army Comp score are two completely different things.

If you faced someone who was the best opponent you've ever played a game with, the whole way through was enjoyable, entertaining and a laugh without a doubt the best game of 40k you've ever played - would you give them a 0 for sportsmanship? No you wouldn't. neg the crap out of their army comp score for sure, but the sporting part of it shouldn't suffer for it

(yes I realise the irony of playing a game being tabled by a 0 comp score army somehow being the most enjoyable game you've had - but the point still stands)

Point taken.

However, just as with the John Jones example, I feel that sportsmanship begins before the game actually begins.
Army composition, sure, but are "competitive" people scoring down other players when they bring SCs and spam loophole-exploiters?
From the feedback in this thread, alone, it seems that it is a point of pride.
Again, it seems that the mindset is one of MtG players.

The John Jones example fails though because cheating. What your suggesting is more like marking people down because they trained more than you prior to getting in the ring.

 jeff white wrote:
These days I have so little time I have yet to play a game with anyone in eighth edition.

This is the only line of yours with which I'm concerned. How can you have any concept of what's best for competitive play?

 jeff white wrote:

Oh it is not a mystery how to counter op SC "builds"...
Wait for rules corrections and nerf bats to shift model sales is maybe the easiest way.
Read about and learn from other experience then spend a ton of time and money " building" the new hotness which is hot simply because it does counter said op SC spam soup "builds" chasing the plastic dragon seems to be the most common "competitive" way to go about it.

Or just argue to have the tournaments FAQ the SC to unusability? That's even easier.

There are ways to deal with every single SC that is out there with what is currently available. That it may take more effort than you want to employ or require you to change your build is actually part and parcel of the game. It is at that point you need to ask yourself why you are playing the game and if you need to be more careful about your own opponents.

 jeff white wrote:
What is a mystery to me is how anyone could feel proud of winning while using such " builds".
Where is the virtue in that, this is the mystery to me.
And yes, if you can't paint due to unsteady hands then your career as a best of the best hobbyist is over.
Happening to me, at my age I can hardly see straight let alone paint at the level of detail that I could as a youth.
I am not complaining and don't mind losing.
I don't set out to lose but I learned not to set out to win every game either.
That is not the purpose of the game and hobby for me.
That is also not how I would define competitive play, just winning every game given halfbaked profit driven rules especially.

Then you are applying to me different motives than I have stated. I've known some very competitive people who are not WAAC. They push hard and play hard because they want to get the most out of themselves and expect others to do the same. It is not WAAC to play hard. If you don't like to play against people who play hard, then don't play against them. Obviously they aren't wanting to play your game any more than you want to play theirs. That still isn't justification to be derogatory towards someone who just plays hard.

 jeff white wrote:
I did attend one grand tourney in I think it was 1998.
I lost most of my games, but I will never forget it.
The trivia tests, the scoring, the gw staff wandering about asking questions.
The winners were of various categories, and winning every game was only one of them.
At that time, one could compete in different ways, and in a general way as a hobbyist.
I was only a few years into the hobby at that time and without time and money and in all seriousness without talent to be the best at any of them.
I did work harder going forward to get better in those various ways and that tournament experience taught me most about what the hobby really entails.
It is or at least was a lot more than chasing the plastic dragon for the win.
Maybe I am a bitter old man longing for the better days, or maybe I have a substantial point.
My purpose here is simply to forcefully represent this perspective, and hopefully influence the future direction of the "sport"

You seem to see the benefits of being competitive, i.e. you push yourself to get better. That's how a "just competitive" person is. They push hard and play hard to improve themselves. They expect others to do the same. These ones are confused by people who put themselves on the field without that expectation. On the other hand, they are as equally offended, if not more, by WAACers who do easter egg hunts in the rules or try to cheat by word-smithing new rules as any casual player is. Interestingly enough, the "just competitive" player wants a balanced game just as much as any casual. In fact, they probably want balance even more than any casual player may want.

 jeff white wrote:
In the end I am against SCs in "competitive" play because the practice discounts other aspects of the game and indeed as I understand it the competition that I feel are equally or more important to the hobby and lifestyle.
I am all for changes in the rules that encourage more p!ayer creativity and I am also for rules that demand more structure and force more restrictions on armies that are brought to competitive events as well as that come to be expected in friendly environments.
These days I have so little time I have yet to play a game with anyone in eighth edition.
I have one scheduled with the nearest fellow hobbyist that I am aware of on the other side of Seoul, but that is at least a month away.
I find a couple hours a week at my painting desk, a couple hours at forums, and i play podcasts at the gym and biking and walking the dogs and listen to battle reports as I edit papers and review other stuff for work.
I learn by twenty plus years of experience with other editions. I have played a lot of forty k. I am almost fifty years old and more than half of those have had paint on my thumbs and forefingers.
My investment in this discourse runs much deeper than winning a game.
And I take my position on principle, in the best interests of hobby and hobbyists as best as I can figure them in good conscience.
PS it is interesting to note that a bit more than half of current respondents would want to limit the use of SCs in some way. So this is not a cut and dried issue. Discourse must continue.

How do Special Characters discount painting or model-building? The only thing it really does is discount creativity in the army build, and that's simply because there are no options on the majority of them. Oddly enough, Marines get more options out of their SCs than most other armies because so many of them can either be on foot or ride a mount of some kind. Binary choices are boring for anyone when constructing a list. In fact it was one reason I stayed away from Necrons in 3rd-5th Edition. Their army construction is still rather simplistic when compared to the other big armies, but it is still far superior to the age of Disruption Fields on Warriors.

 jeff white wrote:
O, I am not surprised.
I am just saying that guy is a

You must have been real fun to play Goldeneye with.

He still has yet to name all the OP special characters that exist. He just says they're OP for no rhyme or reason.

 jeff white wrote:
Seems the concepts of "ethos" and "for its own sake" have gone over your head...

No, sorry, fully understood that.

Skip condescension and feel free to expand on your rebuttal that has zero for content.
We could then see if your opinion has any merit worth considering.

I enjoy 40k for what it is.
A list (net-list or otherwise) is not a means of gauging a person's enjoyment or sportsmanship.
Loading up on characters or avoiding them altogether is also not a means of identifying a person's enjoyment of the game for its own sake.
Now the "spirit" of the game can depend on the environment it is played in: a tournament = competitive which is dependent on the tournament rules.

The focus is the journey of doing your best and the process of play to learn and strive for a win without being a jerk about it.
Your opponent is valuable to you even if you are the selfish type: they are "donating" their time for you to practice.
They are like minded people you may want to play again so being nice and polite is a smart thing to do.

It takes a certain mind to be able to cut through the chaff and find the meat of the rules that matter in a game and identify the "value" of rules and units that make the best use of them.
This pretty much applies to anything.
It is a mental exercise of solving a problem or puzzle.
There is pride to be found to even make use of "profit driven rules" and maybe leverage them beyond the author's intent.

I find the comments from Jeff off-putting because he belittles the accomplishments of those who won or those who attempt to emulate or improve on those wins.

Sirlin gives a good perspective of the mental exercise of actually trying to perform winning moves and not adding excess baggage to one's thinking.
May I again say it is not inherent for a goal focused person to act like a jerk.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

You want to play fluff and narrative play, excellent, it is fun to do.
Characters add much to that play.
That is not the topic of the discussion here.
For competitive play, it is just another item to evaluate and determine if it is optimal to use.
Removing characters makes little difference to the outcome it just moves the bar.

<edit> I really have to read more carefully and not take so long to post... saw the link before me of the same thing. Great minds think alike or fools seldom differ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
[I find a couple hours a week at my painting desk, a couple hours at forums, and i play podcasts at the gym and biking and walking the dogs and listen to battle reports as I edit papers and review other stuff for work.
I learn by twenty plus years of experience with other editions. I have played a lot of forty k. I am almost fifty years old and more than half of those have had paint on my thumbs and forefingers.
My investment in this discourse runs much deeper than winning a game.
And I take my position on principle, in the best interests of hobby and hobbyists as best as I can figure them in good conscience.
PS it is interesting to note that a bit more than half of current respondents would want to limit the use of SCs in some way. So this is not a cut and dried issue. Discourse must continue.

Yep, have a career here too.
Two years shy of 50 myself and been building models and gaming in a multitude of ways since I was 12.
Paint, glue... we can move away from comparing our authority or creds I am sure.
To believe many folk here are "only" concerned with getting that win is a bit beyond cynical.

This is a hobby.
We work hard so expect (demand?) enjoyment from our chosen pursuits.
We each derive different satisfaction from each element of it.
Playing Chess or Go or any other games are no less fun or a challenge they are just different and with varying groups and players associated with them.

Games have rules players agree to play to, if you choose to play contrary to that, you have broken that agreement or at least are playing a different game than what your opponent is aware of.

This is why groups come up with their house rules, so they get the game to a form of play they all prefer.
This removal of special characters is just another means of exercising preference, I still have not read anyone properly define what in particular will really get fixed by doing this.

In tournaments it is a bunch of strangers in a room who do not care whatsoever your idea of "proper" play unless you can point out the page it is written down.

 jeff white wrote:
PS it is interesting to note that a bit more than half of current respondents would want to limit the use of SCs in some way. So this is not a cut and dried issue. Discourse must continue.

Though because the poll isn't very well formatted, there's no indication if they mean "The handful of undercosted special characters need to be rebalanced." or "Ban the lot of them."

 Elemental wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
PS it is interesting to note that a bit more than half of current respondents would want to limit the use of SCs in some way. So this is not a cut and dried issue. Discourse must continue.

Though because the poll isn't very well formatted, there's no indication if they mean "The handful of undercosted special characters need to be rebalanced." or "Ban the lot of them."

Well, it does specify remove them, presumably ALL, or adjust points costs or something to that effect, which would mean less than banning but that something must be done.

 Talizvar wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Seems the concepts of "ethos" and "for its own sake" have gone over your head...

No, sorry, fully understood that.

Well, no, you don't.

 Talizvar wrote:

Skip condescension and feel free to expand on your rebuttal that has zero for content.
We could then see if your opinion has any merit worth considering.

Looks like you have already made your judgment, huh?

 Talizvar wrote:

I enjoy 40k for what it is.

And you have the definition ready at hand, huh?

 Talizvar wrote:

A list (net-list or otherwise) is not a means of gauging a person's enjoyment or sportsmanship.
Loading up on characters or avoiding them altogether is also not a means of identifying a person's enjoyment of the game for its own sake.

Never had anything to say about that, but go for it chief,

 Talizvar wrote:

Now the "spirit" of the game can depend on the environment it is played in: a tournament = competitive which is dependent on the tournament rules.

The focus is the journey of doing your best and the process of play to learn and strive for a win without being a jerk about it.
Your opponent is valuable to you even if you are the selfish type: they are "donating" their time for you to practice.
They are like minded people you may want to play again so being nice and polite is a smart thing to do.

It takes a certain mind to be able to cut through the chaff and find the meat of the rules that matter in a game and identify the "value" of rules and units that make the best use of them.
This pretty much applies to anything.
It is a mental exercise of solving a problem or puzzle.
There is pride to be found to even make use of "profit driven rules" and maybe leverage them beyond the author's intent.

This is where you and I part ways.

 Talizvar wrote:

I find the comments from Jeff off-putting because he belittles the accomplishments of those who won or those who attempt to emulate or improve on those wins.

Of course you do.

 Talizvar wrote:

Sirlin gives a good perspective of the mental exercise of actually trying to perform winning moves and not adding excess baggage to one's thinking.
May I again say it is not inherent for a goal focused person to act like a jerk.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

You want to play fluff and narrative play, excellent, it is fun to do.
Characters add much to that play.
That is not the topic of the discussion here.
For competitive play, it is just another item to evaluate and determine if it is optimal to use.
Removing characters makes little difference to the outcome it just moves the bar.

Then why resist the removal of special characters, and why not embrace the rpg spirit that birthed 40k in the first place instead?

 Talizvar wrote:

<edit> I really have to read more carefully and not take so long to post... saw the link before me of the same thing. Great minds think alike or fools seldom differ?

 Talizvar wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
[I find a couple hours a week at my painting desk, a couple hours at forums, and i play podcasts at the gym and biking and walking the dogs and listen to battle reports as I edit papers and review other stuff for work.
I learn by twenty plus years of experience with other editions. I have played a lot of forty k. I am almost fifty years old and more than half of those have had paint on my thumbs and forefingers.
My investment in this discourse runs much deeper than winning a game.
And I take my position on principle, in the best interests of hobby and hobbyists as best as I can figure them in good conscience.
PS it is interesting to note that a bit more than half of current respondents would want to limit the use of SCs in some way. So this is not a cut and dried issue. Discourse must continue.

Yep, have a career here too.
Two years shy of 50 myself and been building models and gaming in a multitude of ways since I was 12.
Paint, glue... we can move away from comparing our authority or creds I am sure.
To believe many folk here are "only" concerned with getting that win is a bit beyond cynical.

But, isn't that what "competitive" is supposed to mean, at least according to the other posts in this thread?

 Talizvar wrote:

This is a hobby.
We work hard so expect (demand?) enjoyment from our chosen pursuits.
We each derive different satisfaction from each element of it.
Playing Chess or Go or any other games are no less fun or a challenge they are just different and with varying groups and players associated with them.

Games have rules players agree to play to, if you choose to play contrary to that, you have broken that agreement or at least are playing a different game than what your opponent is aware of.

This is why groups come up with their house rules, so they get the game to a form of play they all prefer.
This removal of special characters is just another means of exercising preference, I still have not read anyone properly define what in particular will really get fixed by doing this.

In tournaments it is a bunch of strangers in a room who do not care whatsoever your idea of "proper" play unless you can point out the page it is written down.

Well, I tried to explain my position regarding the virtues of NOT using special characters, but I guess this went over your head, too, and I have other things to do than to type at a wall.
If you are seriously interested in a philosophical discussion, then I am in for it in good conscience and in good faith - no bull .
Start a thread or send me a PM.
For me, 40k and wargaming in particular have deep virtues and offer a unique opportunity to practice meta-level discourse over rules by which all participants in said discourse are simultaneously bound, mirroring moral and ethical and legal discourses. IMHO people need more practice in this, especially, as is likely more than evident in rapidly fracturing Western civil society. Seriously deep stuff. And deemphasizing fast food army construction is one important facet of this... That is my take. Anyways, if you are interested in discussing more, then I will make time. Otherwise, I voted, I note the split in the "community", and I am doing what I can to move discourse in a civil manner toward making things clear. Right now, I have other things to get done...

And you still have yet to create a list of all the broken Special characters.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you still have yet to create a list of all the broken Special characters.

Y? Who are you to give me homework?