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.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am against comp but then again there is something negative to be said about an army no one enjoys playing against.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

As long as GW says triplicates are legal, and there's no comp involved, a portion of tournament players will always max out strong units. "Enjoyment" is subjective as well. Some competitive players "enjoy" facing the hardest lists possible whereas a portion of the middle/bottom of the pack players will not.

The players who don't "enjoy" facing triptides or triple drakes are almost always the ones without spam themselves, even if the format is open. It's a very rare thing indeed to find a player toting five FMC's complaining about facing triptides.

If people really want to not face "unfun" or "WAAC" lists, they need to start supporting comp again. Crossing your fingers and hoping another player in a competitive tournament cares about how much fun you'll have facing their list is a fool's wish.

You are not making any friends and I have seen it come back to bite people in the ass. It is what it is like it or not.

Care to explain this statement?

"If you aren't willing to sacrifice your friends, your self-respect and your self-worth over a game, then you aren't playing hard enough."


This slogan is emblazoned over the front of a shirt a mate has.
He's a rather 'competitive' board game player. It's embarrassing to watch a supposed grown-up throw a tantrum that a 3 year old would hesitate to do.

Outside of a gaming environment, he's almost normal, though.

The 40k crowd, mostly through the accessible nature of the game (compared to Fantasy), influx of more young guys, and the advent of MTG style netlisting has more or less become a sloppy version of MTG, at least at the competitive level. Think MTG around the tail end of Urzas when there were all of three decks that won and mostly everyone else just got their poop pushed in. This would not be a bad thing on the face of it, but there has been a very vocal push to kill comp in the game since around 2k8 or so and the game itself has numerous exploitable rules holes.

The first thing is not a problem, per se; if the community wants Donkey Punch Hammer, then it gets to have it. But I feel like its a small vocal crowd pushing for this, mostly after a reaction to a spate of larger events where the 5-0 guys walked without winning anything. Thing is, if those guys have barely primed armies and were complete tools to everyone they played, then yeah they probably should have left empty handed. If you want a competitive game where the 5-0 guy always wins the overall, then you need a tighter rule set with better balance. If the will of the community is to play Kobra Kai Sweep the Leg Hammer, however, then so be it.

The second one is a huge problem, mostly due to designer ineptitude. Did they really not realize that Jetseer lists taking forever to activate a bajillion powers each round was going to be a problem? Did no one consider how ugly intercepting large blast AP2 templates were? What were they smoking when they priced the Grav gun similarly to the Plasma Gun? Then you have passive aggressive manipulators who play on people's good nature to cheat in a variety of subtle (and often cumulative) ways and we all know at least one person who falls under that category. They take things with vague or obscure rules and use that vagueness to push the other person around or outright get around the rules. These sorts of guys turn up in every game with prizes for events, but the shoddy rules structure is a huge enabler for them. Worst of all, they get people to cut them slack, effectively abusing people's good nature to get ahead, which is a huge negative experience for all involved. This is the most serious of the two issues and as old as gaming, itself, since the first D&D powergamer rolled up a paladin and proceeded to be a complete jerk at the table. Consequently, there is no easy solution, outside of tightening the ruleset or community peer pressure to eject these guys.

Fantasy has some of the same issues, but not as bad. Thankfully, the WAAC crowd mostly departed for greener pastures when 8th came out and events started taking soft scores more seriously. While the community is smaller, I can honestly say that there are far less issues with behavior in it, as a general rule. Age of the players probably has something to do with that, too.

Meh, rambling old man post I guess. Bottom line, the WAAC stuff exists because the 40k community collectively (if unconsciously) moved things down that path and the rules are not balanced or tight enough to curtail it to acceptable levels, like say in War Machine or XW. Maybe the designers saw this and 6th is some half assed attempt to shake out the hyper competitive people, but given their track record, I seriously doubt it and they have, if anything, made it worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chromedog wrote:
"If you aren't willing to sacrifice your friends, your self-respect and your self-worth over a game, then you aren't playing hard enough."


This slogan is emblazoned over the front of a shirt a mate has.
He's a rather 'competitive' board game player. It's embarrassing to watch a supposed grown-up throw a tantrum that a 3 year old would hesitate to do.

Outside of a gaming environment, he's almost normal, though.

The male ego, especially the 20ish age one, is a fragile and amazing thing to behold. Gamers are worse, because we are not exactly rolling in hookers and blow and all that unused energy has to go someplace.

chromedog you are spot on.

 Phazael wrote:

The male ego, especially the 20ish age one, is a fragile and amazing thing to behold. Gamers are worse, because we are not exactly rolling in hookers and blow and all that unused energy has to go someplace.

Yeah, he's early 20s. Although it should taper off now that he's started playing gridiron at local level (it's getting a surprising amount of interest from the young blokes here - but is still miles away from directly competing for numbers with soccer, let alone AFL or NRL. I think even women's soccer beats it for numbers (not denigrating the WNSL - they often play better than the men and have fewer pratfalls).
I'm in my mid 40s but I was never a competitive player (my little brother got all the competitive streaks).
Stubborn and pig-headed, I may be - but competitive, nope.

Define WAAC

Putting 100% effort into making and playing a list isn't WAAC.

Bringing the "If you're not cheating you're not really trying" mentality into 40k is WAAC

Bitching about spam lists will just result it not being taken seriously. They are less common than people imagine in a GT.

I have no problem with any particular list in general. Really couldnt care less.

What I have a problem with is repetition. I get SOO bored going to a tournament and 2 or more of the games are against the same list. I would rather lose against an interesting list than win against the same list over and over again.

WAACAH is the proper term. Used to be one so I understand the desire to crush your enemy. Some time a few years ago it become not fun to crush my opponent. I'd rather have a game that both people enjoy (win or lose). I go to tourneys because you get to play 3+ games vs different people/armies in 1-2 days. You don't get that at the FLGS, you get 1 maybe 2 games in. Being competetive and being WAACAH are 2 differnet things. Is your life really so crappy that you have to be "King of the Plastic Army men"?

Great attitude!

Dronze wrote:
WAAC isn't manipulating the game to take advantage of jank rules, WAAC is misinterpreting those rules blatantly.

WAAC isn't taking the most broken netlist on the planet and playing to it's strengths, WAAC is taking said lists and misrepresenting what things do.

WAAC isn't about exploiting wonky rules interactions not yet addressed by the FAQ or errata, WAAC is arguing a TO or judge's interpretation until you're blue in the face until the call is made in your favor.

WAAC isn't about taking a little bit of extra time here and there to consider your moves, WAAC is about intentionally playing the clock down to deny your opponent their last turn.

WAAC is about extremes taken in pursuit of winning a trivial game with no regard for your opponent or sportsmanship. Hard play is a positive thing, dickish play is not.

This.

The poll doesn't represent a valid definition of WAAC in my eyes.

Yes that is WAAC spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 frgsinwntr wrote:

Dronze wrote:
WAAC isn't manipulating the game to take advantage of jank rules, WAAC is misinterpreting those rules blatantly.

WAAC isn't taking the most broken netlist on the planet and playing to it's strengths, WAAC is taking said lists and misrepresenting what things do.

WAAC isn't about exploiting wonky rules interactions not yet addressed by the FAQ or errata, WAAC is arguing a TO or judge's interpretation until you're blue in the face until the call is made in your favor.

WAAC isn't about taking a little bit of extra time here and there to consider your moves, WAAC is about intentionally playing the clock down to deny your opponent their last turn.

WAAC is about extremes taken in pursuit of winning a trivial game with no regard for your opponent or sportsmanship. Hard play is a positive thing, dickish play is not.

This.

The poll doesn't represent a valid definition of WAAC in my eyes.

Actually, for those of us who enjoy the game and want our opponent to, most of those things you listed as not being WAAC actually are very much WAAC.

Manipulating the rules outside the spirit or intent to facilitate a win is most certainly WAAC behavior.
Taking Face Beater Lists is a sportsmanship issue and not WAAC behavior, agreed.
Using a lack of FAQ to try and milk rules for easter eggs is the very essence of WAAC behavior. See the FnP rage fest in YMDC for a perfect example of this in action at a professional Dbag level.
Taking time is not WAAC, but intentionally designing your army and playstyle to be a three turn gunline win certainly is, agreed.

Several of the things you cite as being non WAAC are things likely to create a significantly negative experience for the other person. Twisting rules in grey areas in the pursuit of victory will always come at the expense of the other guy's enjoyment of the game. Bodying them because of Rock Paper Scissors, well that they have to accept as a function of the messed up metagame of 40k right now. Feel free to run the triple chicken/taudar army, but the minute you start playing that army and start rules lawyering every single odd thing, you have officially crossed over into WAACistan.

I personally feel that composition needs to make its way back into tournament play. Start spamming riptides, heldrakes, vendettas, whatever, and your score goes down. To where if you spam three riptides and three skyrays, there goes your comp score right out the window. No chance of winning overall. A person who really knows how to play this game, and it's inner workings shouldn't need to stand on a spam can crutch. A guy that I know who plays fun lists, hard, but fun lists consistently beats spam lists simply because he out plays that person. I had a game against a Tau player with my IG. He ran a standard broadside spam list behind an aegis. By the end of turn six I had a LRBT and an infantry squad left, a total of I think 210 points of my 1850. He won with one point. He was furious, because I outplayed his net list. People need to stop relying on the internet to tell them how to play, and grow a pair.

I personally frown upon WAAC lists for pickup games and what not unless it is agreed upon prior.

WAAC lists are okay in tournaments unless it is like a RTT tournament with army comp. I found that those events were more about the hobby in general than just winning.

Dronze wrote:
WAAC isn't manipulating the game to take advantage of jank rules,

Yes, it is.

WAAC is misinterpreting those rules blatantly.

If it's intentionally, then yes.

WAAC isn't taking the most broken netlist on the planet and playing to it's strengths,

This I agree with. In my mind there's no such thing as a WAAC-list.

WAAC is taking said lists and misrepresenting what things do.

Well yes, that's cheating.

WAAC isn't about exploiting wonky rules interactions not yet addressed by the FAQ or errata,

This is a tough one. If you're doing this, then you're obviously following the rules, but if the rule is broken and it's obvious that it intended something else, and you're still sticking to the written rule, then WAAC might be called. This one differs from case to case IMO.

WAAC is arguing a TO or judge's interpretation until you're blue in the face until the call is made in your favor.

This is being a baby, and definitely WAAC.

WAAC isn't about taking a little bit of extra time here and there to consider your moves,

I don't know, I think when people say that...

WAAC is about intentionally playing the clock down to deny your opponent their last turn.

... then this is what they mean. No reasonable player is gonna cry WAAC if someone plays carefully.

WAAC is about extremes taken in pursuit of winning a trivial game with no regard for your opponent or sportsmanship. Hard play is a positive thing, dickish play is not.

Totally

Phazael - is it wrong to point out that I don't care how much my opponent is enjoying themselves in a tourney setting? While I certainly won't go out of my way to be a dick, I've had far too many experiences where someone cannot act like a decent human being, winning or losing, to be able to care when there is the potential for material gain on the line.

Fishybob - I was writing dual-crypteks-in-warrior-squads lists before they were faqed as legal, and when everyone was saying they wouldn't be. Game manipulation to take advantage of jank rules.

Anyone claiming comp should be a thing - it never went anywhere, it's printed in the rulebook under "force org." if you take issue with this, then don't play competitive, paint competitive.

Dronze wrote:
WAAC isn't manipulating the game to take advantage of jank rules, WAAC is misinterpreting those rules blatantly.

WAAC isn't taking the most broken netlist on the planet and playing to it's strengths, WAAC is taking said lists and misrepresenting what things do.

WAAC isn't about exploiting wonky rules interactions not yet addressed by the FAQ or errata, WAAC is arguing a TO or judge's interpretation until you're blue in the face until the call is made in your favor.

WAAC isn't about taking a little bit of extra time here and there to consider your moves, WAAC is about intentionally playing the clock down to deny your opponent their last turn.

WAAC is about extremes taken in pursuit of winning a trivial game with no regard for your opponent or sportsmanship. Hard play is a positive thing, dickish play is not.

I can dig it. This is about where I'm at on the subject. Thanks Dronze!

Edit: In competitive play. In friendly play, I'd rather play around my opponent's level in order to get a more enjoyable game in.

No such thing as waac lists, only waac people

I'm usually on the power gaming spectrum, but I realize trying to power game a dice game usually ends poorly when I'm in a mid tournament setting, my dice go super sour, and I get knocked out of rankings for a poor match-up with bad dice rolls.

I'm selling off my Av13 Crons and sold my Wolves to become "WAAC" at the painting competitions since I know I can (and have) excelled at those. The only way I can see cheating there is hiring someone else to paint your models, but that's something I'd never do!

In friendly games, cheese tier lists aren't fun unless you can bring your equally cheese tier list. While my old Long Fang spam in 5E was good, a guard parking lot or DE alpha strike would still kick it's teeth in a fair amount of times. This new Tau I have BBQ'd with Sisters (to much my chagrin). But Wave Serpents or these 2++ Screamers or 2+ Cover/Armor Jetseers? Game becomes "if X spells are rolled, Y player is rolled."

I didn't vote because the questions were poorly presented.

Dronze wrote:
Phazael - is it wrong to point out that I don't care how much my opponent is enjoying themselves in a tourney setting? While I certainly won't go out of my way to be a dick, I've had far too many experiences where someone cannot act like a decent human being, winning or losing, to be able to care when there is the potential for material gain on the line.

So your solution to other people acting like dicks is to act like one as well?

Pointing it out is not wrong, it is in fact honest. Not caring about whether or not someone else enjoys the game or not calls into question why you would bother with a social hobby like this and not just stay at home playing computer games, instead of trampling on someone else's feelings to derive your entertainment.

 Phazael wrote:

Dronze wrote:
Phazael - is it wrong to point out that I don't care how much my opponent is enjoying themselves in a tourney setting? While I certainly won't go out of my way to be a dick, I've had far too many experiences where someone cannot act like a decent human being, winning or losing, to be able to care when there is the potential for material gain on the line.

So your solution to other people acting like dicks is to act like one as well?

Pointing it out is not wrong, it is in fact honest. Not caring about whether or not someone else enjoys the game or not calls into question why you would bother with a social hobby like this and not just stay at home playing computer games, instead of trampling on someone else's feelings to derive your entertainment.

Tourney play is not social play. It may be a social event, but there is investment for potential gain involved here, so feelings don't come into it. If I didn't enjoy a good, low-stress game, I wouldn't be teaching various other minis games at my flgs. I don't reciprocate dickish behavior, as that would be exceedingly bad form, but with money on the line, I'm more concerned with enjoying my own process of mental gymnastics, it doesn't matter, and is utimately irrelevant in a purely competitive matchup, if the guy across the table enjoys playing me in this mode. Normal, everyday pickup game, I'll focus on having fun, certainly. I'm not some antisocial monster, but screwing around at practice gives no indication of what goes down on the field when it actually matters how the games turn out.

Actually, in my experience, tournament play _IS_ social play, though I admit that this is often less the case in 40k, as opposed to Fantasy. I guess the question I would ask is if "money being on the line" changes the way you behave, then what does that say about you? Personally, I play the same way whether I am sitting in my garage or if I am at table one at a GT. The only things that modify my behavior are if my opponent is cheating his ass off or if the person I am playing is really new and in need of a tutorial game. A lot of the guys I play with are pretty much the same way, really. If someone is an obvious cheating douche, then yeah show no quarter (or better yet, just walk away), but otherwise what is the justification of behaving differently in a tournament setting?

I think your attitude is also unrealistic because ultimately there is only ever one event winner. Even the best players know they cannot win every tournament and it is shear arrogance to go into every tournament assuming you will win, so treating every tourney game like its the Super bowl is just a little bit over the top, really. You cannot guarantee, by any stretch, that you will win an event, but you _can_ make a positive impression on everyone by giving them a fair and friendly game. And, most of the time, people will return the favor. Again, if you do not care about how the person across the table enjoys their game, then just stay home playing Call of Duty with anonymous Xbros.

I think a fair part of this is age based and game culture based. Younger guys always have to assert their epeens by steamrolling newbs as thoroughly as possible by any means available and I was certainly more like that when I started. But the older I get, the more I want a nail biter game that I win by outmaneuvering my opponent at the right time which goes down to the wire, rather than a two turn tabling. I guess when you have won a few, it starts mattering a lot less to the fragile male ego, at least if your draw is the game itself, rather than just wins and phat lewtz.

On the contrary, Phazael, prior to my delve into the wonderful world of tabletop wargaming, I played a fair amount of tournament paintball. On our team, we had a saying - SOWISA - Strap on whenever it seems appropriate. Off the field, everything was all good, we would laugh and bulls*it with our fellow competitors, and generally have a good time. Once the match was called, and we headed for the chrony box, however, it was all business. We were there for a specific purpose, to play our guts out and do everything within the rules and our power to win. From match call to flag hang, we had our game faces on. We gave no quarter, and expected none in return. When outcomes don't ultimately matter, I learned to kick back and enjoy the ride, but when every point counts, that's another thing entirely.

Do I have the frankly unrealistic expectation that I will win every event I go to? Not at all. Will I make it any easier than it should be for the guy across the table to take that brass ring that I'm also reaching for? Never. That would be shameful on my part, and an insult to my opponent.

As to tourney play and social play being the same thing, I guarantee you would never play tournament poker the same way you would play if you were just at a buddy's place for poker night. It just so happens that I take the same approach to my minis gaming.

I have no problem with the list as long as it is not all that is being played that day.

My problem is not with WAAC but with lack of variety among lists.

Who wants to go to a tournament and play three extremely similar lists?

I would have no problem if I went and played one quad riptide tau, one flying circus, and one waveserpent spam, or screamerstar. Now the games themselves would not be very entertaining as I slowly got tabled but it would not be that bad overall as long as the players were fun.

I think Variety is my problem more so than power level of lists.

Also as long as people play by the rules and are fun to play with I really dont care. This is a very social game and should be treated as such(IMO)

Lack of variety happens in heavy comp environments too.

If you show up at tourneys and get surprised/disappointed if/when you face WAAC players you don't/may not belong at tourneys. May be a pointed comment, but it's true.

Pretty much.

People get upset when I expect them to play by the rules, and get more upset when I call them on it.

Tau players throw a gak fit when you fire at drones and tell them that the drones not in cover because not covered in any way shape or form.

The rules for disembarking are always fun to explain again and again as well.

I might as well add my definitions of WAAC here as well.

Taking a min/max list is not WAAC, it is playing by the rules.

Cheating is not WAAC, it is cheating.


There are tons of events out there. Find out about the event you want to go to and then get a feel for how you and your army will fit there.

I hate when good players taking brutally efficient lists are called WAAC. WAAC is a mentality, not a list.

An expierienced player takes a nasty O'VesaStar list, Farsight, O'Vesa, two Riptids, cheap scoring suits and goes to a GT after some extensive play testing and practice. He plays a mean game, knows the rules, uses them to his full advantage, and steamrolls his first two opponents and wins a good match against a similar style good player to win the tournament. He is not a WAAC player, he is a good and competitive player.

Another player with much less experience takes the exact list, he actually copied the other guys list from the Dakka Army List forums. He misinterprets rules, is a poor sport, inexperienced with the list, and blatantly tries to beat the other player any way he can. Calls the judge over a couple of times a game and is constantly wrong after the judge and opponent correct him. Or worse, his opponents let his attitude and play slide. Nothing is his fault, its just his dice. He ends up getting middle of the pack. He is a WAAC player.

Same list, two different players. One is WAAC and the other is not. Don't lump them together.