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.

I think one problem I find with WAAC players is that the lists are boring and repetitive. Especially with chaos - lash and oblits again and again and again?

To me, WAAC players are essentially rules lawyers who will twist the poorly written BRB and dexes in whichever way best benefits them. They may be unpleasant to play, but I'll still play them for the opportunity to kick their teeth in regardless of their bs. Cheaters are simply cheaters. They won't get the time of day from me. Wanting to win is normal and expected, as long as you stay in the general spirit of the game.

Maelstrom808 wrote:To me, WAAC players are essentially rules lawyers who will twist the poorly written BRB and dexes in whichever way best benefits them. They may be unpleasant to play, but I'll still play them for the opportunity to kick their teeth in regardless of their bs. Cheaters are simply cheaters. They won't get the time of day from me. Wanting to win is normal and expected, as long as you stay in the general spirit of the game.

But poorly written rules are surely in the eye of the beholder. Case in point, I recently had to explain how wound allocation works. The (relatively new) player thought that it was the goofiest, most abusive thing he'd ever heard of, because it meant that he caused wounds that didn't count. Frankly, I didn't have a counter-argument, because I could see what he was saying.

And we all know how straightforward wound allocation is in comparison with some of the 'easter eggs' that have been found in the rules.

daedalus wrote: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?

That's a false dichotomy that doesn't really apply to how people perceive WAAC gaming. If an opponent, every shooting phase, tries to rules lawyer something about cover, or distance, or whatever, with every unit just so they can kill one more toy soldier a turn, and doesn't mind arguing till he's blue in the face, and has to be right every time, and doesn't care how immature he looks when he starts spitting sour grapes when he loses, and demonstrates poor sportsmanship in the service of winning: that seems to be central to defining WAAC players. It doesn't have anything to do with an opponent not wanting to win or endorsing mediocrity. This isn't a Vonnegut short story extolling the virtues of rugged individualism. It's about people not liking dickheads.

The fact is, most people play to have fun, and opponents like the ones described above make a game that is supposed to be fun not fun.

daedalus wrote: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.

Yeah, winning at all costs carries connotations with it that I don't care for and I would automatically assume that wanting to win pre-supposes you will do so honorably. Still, the statement winning at all costs doesn't just mean the underhanded exploitation of the rules or outright cheating. It also, to my mind, means using a specific list over and over again of a faction that has real advantages via the rules over others. This isn't cheating and is perfectly acceptable. Go to any tournament and this is frequently the case.

In other words, why try and win with x when I can more easily win with y. After all I want to win the tournament. This generally causes a faction to be over-represented at tournaments for various reasons. Those lists then trickle down to local and private games to much less effect.

The odd thing though, is that really good players at the tournament level can win with most anything. I often have success with my vanilla marines despite what mantra people chant on the forums. Number crunchers and odds makers can fortell a bit of what the armies will do on the table, but when you're there in the moment competing against a really good player all bets are truly off.

MrLimeKing wrote:I think one problem I find with WAAC players is that the lists are boring and repetitive. Especially with chaos - lash and oblits again and again and again?

CSM players are crippled by having a codex full of crap that has been demolished by codex creep. Granted, we don't have it as bad as Necrons, but there's also lots of good CSM lists that don't use lash or oblits at all. I have a lascannon spam termicide list, a vindi spam list, a straight khorne list, a chock-a-block PM NDP W/WP list. They're all good if played properly and a creative list builder can play any off-meta army competently.

I think it was H.B.M.C. that said something like, "A competitive player builds a list to win a game. A casual player builds a list to win a game and then pretends that he didn't."

daedalus wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:To me, WAAC players are essentially rules lawyers who will twist the poorly written BRB and dexes in whichever way best benefits them. They may be unpleasant to play, but I'll still play them for the opportunity to kick their teeth in regardless of their bs. Cheaters are simply cheaters. They won't get the time of day from me. Wanting to win is normal and expected, as long as you stay in the general spirit of the game.

But poorly written rules are surely in the eye of the beholder. Case in point, I recently had to explain how wound allocation works. The (relatively new) player thought that it was the goofiest, most abusive thing he'd ever heard of, because it meant that he caused wounds that didn't count. Frankly, I didn't have a counter-argument, because I could see what he was saying.

And we all know how straightforward wound allocation is in comparison with some of the 'easter eggs' that have been found in the rules.

QFT. This is one of the biggest issues that polarizes gamers and causes cries of "WAAC!"

A great example of this problem was Deffrolla Ramming - RAW, it was legal but many people felt it was bending the rules (aka rules lawyering for advantage) and therefore accused people that used it of being WAAC gamers (pre-FAQ of course). Similarly, issues like Nemesis Falchions, Doom of Malantai (now FAQ'd), etc are all vague enough (and game influencing enough) that people on both sides start accusing each other of being WAAC gamers.

hemingway wrote:
That's a false dichotomy that doesn't really apply to how people perceive WAAC gaming. If an opponent, every shooting phase, tries to rules lawyer something about cover, or distance, or whatever, with every unit just so they can kill one more toy soldier a turn, and doesn't mind arguing till he's blue in the face, and has to be right every time, and doesn't care how immature he looks when he starts spitting sour grapes when he loses, and demonstrates poor sportsmanship in the service of winning: that seems to be central to defining WAAC players. It doesn't have anything to do with an opponent not wanting to win or endorsing mediocrity. This isn't a Vonnegut short story extolling the virtues of rugged individualism. It's about people not liking dickheads.

The fact is, most people play to have fun, and opponents like the ones described above make a game that is supposed to be fun not fun.

I totally agree about not liking dickheads. There's a special part of Hell reserved for cover/LOS lawyers. I was referring to the OP's original definition of WAAC, which is just wanting to win as much as possible, and using well put together lists and good units rather than using the bottom half of your codex and whining when the other person uses the top half of theirs. He was the one who asked, "Is it so wrong to want to win?" With the frequency these threads come up, I sometimes honestly think there is this phobia of appearing to want to win. I mean, you don't play baseball hitting half as hard as you can and only jogging between bases. You don't play chess without your knights. Why should wargaming be different?

Also, I was picturing Rand, but Vonnegut works too.

Uhlan wrote:
Yeah, winning at all costs carries connotations with it that I don't care for and I would automatically assume that wanting to win pre-supposes you will do so honorably. Still, the statement winning at all costs doesn't just mean the underhanded exploitation of the rules or outright cheating. It also, to my mind, means using a specific list over and over again of a faction that has real advantages via the rules over others. This isn't cheating and is perfectly acceptable. Go to any tournament and this is frequently the case.

In other words, why try and win with x when I can more easily win with y. After all I want to win the tournament. This generally causes a faction to be over-represented at tournaments for various reasons. Those lists then trickle down to local and private games to much less effect.

The odd thing though, is that really good players at the tournament level can win with most anything. I often have success with my vanilla marines despite what mantra people chant on the forums. Number crunchers and odds makers can fortell a bit of what the armies will do on the table, but when you're there in the moment competing against a really good player all bets are truly off.

Well, I get sick of seeing netlists as much as the next person, but they also have the unintended side-effect of being easier to plan for, which means that lists that take "the meta" into account are actually more powerful. It would also be nice to show up and play against something at a tournament other than Space Marines for once, but I'm not helping things as Hive Fleet Failboat is pretty much strictly non-tournament only.

With regard to your last point, that makes perfect sense. I think you'll always have the potential to do better with a list you personally made rather than a netlist, because you're more comfortable with it. You know why each and every unit is there, what it's role will be, and why you included it. While some things may be rather self-evident in a netlist, you're not always as proficient with it.

As others have said get a feel of what the guys like. Me and my bro inlaw are trying out new units as we only came back to 40k after a very long time.

However my mate who has just got back into it love building stong lists and what I thought would be a game for the laughs to get him back in to the rules turned out to be quite competative...sadly I used a green tide army and got slaughtered but still had lots of fun and many beers

It just seems there is a predisposition to claim people are WAAC if they like to play strong lists. 40K at some level is a game of numbers. (Tactics are the single most important part do not misunderstand me) Why not give yourself the best possible chance by taking units that are proven effective? An example of this. For tau why would you take an ethereal, instead of a battle suit commander? It is not because of fluff etc, it is because an ethereal is a terrible unit ( one of the worst in the game).

On the subject of Netlists. I do it i admit freely that I do. I have done the equivalent in other games as well. Why is this viewed in a negative light? There are things in games (especially games involving point values like 40k) that are more effective than others. With the advent of the Internet in gaming, we are able to bring together infinitely more test data than we ever thought possible. With all of this information the absolute most effective is discerned very very quickly. How long did it take to make a GK crowe purifier build with 6 dreds w/psybolt ammo? It was known before the codex was even out. I knew of a reasonably competitive list for an army before I had actually seen the codex.

When all of this information is being broken down at this rate lists will come up that are the stronger type for their respective race, ( mech wolves,DOA, mechvet etc.). This is a good thing. Now anyone who wants to can go online and get a strong list to play with, making it easier to start playing the game at that level.

If you do not want to play a strong list, then don't but do not fault others for utilizing information at every ones disposal. It simply does not make sense to me as to why someone would not want to use something that is the most effective? Furthermore why would you demonize ( no offense chaos ) someone that does? Is it really that different than showing up to a race track with a go kart, because it is "fun" for you, then loosing to a well toned racing machine, then you console your self by saying " oh its ok I was just using my go kart?" Do people take weak things on purpose as a crutch for their ego? So when they loose they may blame that?

jacetms87 wrote: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.)

As noted, it's because your definition is WASC. "Win at SOME costs".
WAAC means to "Win AT ALL COSTS.". They will allow NOTHING to prevent them winning, including stooping to cheating. They don't care if they are disqualified for cheating, as long as they beat you in your game. Admittedly, their goal may be to get to the #1 spot, but if they can do this then the TOs aren't on their game, either.

Xca|iber wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:To me, WAAC players are essentially rules lawyers who will twist the poorly written BRB and dexes in whichever way best benefits them. They may be unpleasant to play, but I'll still play them for the opportunity to kick their teeth in regardless of their bs. Cheaters are simply cheaters. They won't get the time of day from me. Wanting to win is normal and expected, as long as you stay in the general spirit of the game.

But poorly written rules are surely in the eye of the beholder. Case in point, I recently had to explain how wound allocation works. The (relatively new) player thought that it was the goofiest, most abusive thing he'd ever heard of, because it meant that he caused wounds that didn't count. Frankly, I didn't have a counter-argument, because I could see what he was saying.

And we all know how straightforward wound allocation is in comparison with some of the 'easter eggs' that have been found in the rules.

QFT. This is one of the biggest issues that polarizes gamers and causes cries of "WAAC!"

A great example of this problem was Deffrolla Ramming - RAW, it was legal but many people felt it was bending the rules (aka rules lawyering for advantage) and therefore accused people that used it of being WAAC gamers (pre-FAQ of course). Similarly, issues like Nemesis Falchions, Doom of Malantai (now FAQ'd), etc are all vague enough (and game influencing enough) that people on both sides start accusing each other of being WAAC gamers.

There is a huge difference between a guy fairly fresh to the game not understanding a complicated rule, and a vet who knows the rules in and out, knows what is under strong contention, and is unrelenting in trying to force the version of the rule that is most advantageous to him at that moment. IMO, a normal player would push for the version of the rule they think is right, regardless of if they benefit from it or not, and would be willing to comprimise or at least dice off over it for the sake of moving the game along.

Surely, someone can be waac but not a cheater.

They wouldn't be WAAC if they let something as insignificant as a conscience stop them.

AT ALL COSTS means nothing will be allowed to stop them.

Excessive rules lawyering for example. Not cheating but can still be Waac.

The whole concept of WAAC is silly.

Cheating is bad.

Wanting to win is not bad.

WAAC is this wierd hybrid that is sometimes cheating, sometimes just wanting to win, sometimes being overly precise with the rules, sometimes whatever the loser can come up with to write off their loss because the other guy was "WAAC".

If someone is a tool and you don't like playing them, don't play them casually. If you go to a tournament and someone cheats, call them out. If you go to a tournament and someone does anything other than cheat pipe down and quite using vague terms that have no real meaning.

I agree that sometimes WAAC is inappropriately used, or used as a smear against someone who's just a bit more competitive, or knows the rules better, than the speaker.

That being said, I do think there is a generally-agreed upon sense of what WAAC is in terms of an observable set of behaviors/mindset.

Players who put their shortsighted desire to win ahead of their longer-term self interest, in that they abuse and break the social contract to the extent that they ruin the fun and alienate themselves from other players.

Mannahnin wrote:Players who put their shortsighted desire to win ahead of their longer-term self interest, in that they abuse and break the social contract to the extent that they ruin the fun and alienate themselves from other players.

I call that guy a tool. You don't have to play them if they suck the fun out of it for you. Except at a tournament, in which case I still say if they aren't cheating they are an unfortunate reality of every recreational activity man has ever created and you just need to deal with it.

I'm getting a beat heated, *deep breath*, but I am really tired of people using this catch all term to describe anything unlike themself as a way of dismissing their losses. At that is how I see it used 99% of the time.

"Tool" is insufficiently descriptive. There a lot of different types of tools.

Some behavior can be borderline cheating or tough to tell.

If a player constantly makes dubious claims about LOS/cover, it is difficult to say conclusively that they are cheating, but it is clear that they care more about winning a momentary advantage than they do a smooth and agreeable competitive game.

If a player pretends ignorance of a rule to their disadvantage, or misplays something to their advantage, then when called on it pretends ignorance or having forgotten how it actually works, it can be difficult to be sure they are actually pretending/cheating, but the behavior still forms an observable pattern.

Misuse of a term isn't necessarily a good reason to throw the term out entire. Baby and bathwater and all that.

Mannahnin wrote:
If a player constantly makes dubious claims about LOS/cover, it is difficult to say conclusively that they are cheating, but it is clear that they care more about winning a momentary advantage than they do a smooth and agreeable competitive game.

Agree and disagree. If something is legitmately questionable, I would expect someone to favor the side that benefits them. I think the way you handle the disagreement does reflect if your number one priority is to win regaurdless of the experience, or to try and win so long as it doesn't mean fighting tooth and nail on every little thing. But I don't think one is inherently better than the other. And that's only for things that are genuinely questionable. If they are trying to present something as questionable when it isn't or if they are misquoting or mis applying rules than that's cheating. Cheating is bad, fighting for your side of a legitimate dispute is not bad.

Mannahnin wrote:
If a player pretends ignorance of a rule to their disadvantage, or misplays something to their advantage, then when called on it pretends ignorance or having forgotten how it actually works, it can be difficult to be sure they are actually pretending/cheating, but the behavior still forms an observable pattern.

I would call that cheating. Impossible to prove cheating, but cheating. I think cheater is the more approriate descriptor than WAAC.

Mannahnin wrote:Misuse of a term isn't necessarily a good reason to throw the term out entire. Baby and bathwater and all that.

Generally agreed. But it is so misused I basically tune out as soon as someone starts using it. 90%+ percent of the time the person is using it to describe something that is legal, but they don't like, and influenced the game.

For example, two sets of friends of mine came up against eachother at Adepticon in the Team Tournament. Player 1 on team A started to shoot before player 2 issued orders. Player 2 caught him almost immediately but the dice had already been thrown. My friend on the opposite team called them on it and wouldn't let them issue the orders, and it ended up be fairly game impacting. This pissed my friend on the guard team off, and I had to hear about how the other guy was beeing "WAAC" and this and that. What happened was totally legal, the "WAAC" player was totally within his right to do what he did, but because one guy (who probably would have done the same thing) didn't like it he started throwing arbitrary meaning internet labels at him.

The same day guys made similar comments to one of my team mates about me because in the game we had two rules disputes that were unfavorable for my opponents that I was 100% in the right about. But they didn't like it, and because I brought up the fact that they were misapplying the rules (and preventing them from cheating me) I was WAAC.

I would say that kind of sums up the vast majority of the terms use. I simply tune out at this point and usually knock the credibility of the term's user down a notch or two in my mind.

edited for grammar

A famous game designer called Reiner Knizia once said that the object of a game is to win but the point of playing is to have fun.

The problem with people always playing the strongest possible list is that the majority of armies and less powerful builds are put at a disadvantage. This will reduce the variety in the metagame if lots of people follow suit.

Variety is the spice of life. The fun of 40K is the wide range of armies and models that can be used.

To take the argument ad absurdum, if everyone played to win with the strongest possible army, 80% of battles might be SW missile spam vs SW missile spam.

Well when I go to my local club and we get a guy bringing three Trygons or a Space Wolf spamming Jaws of the World Wolf... I can't honestly say I enjoy the games. I tend to bring 'fluffy' lists as I've said :-/

I personally play the game for a laugh, and usually quite rarely as I'm more of a painter/collector.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've also only won about 2 out of the fourteen or so games I've played.

I guess when no one's having fun anymore then things have officially gotten Waacky