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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thats because competitive does not equal WAAC. The only time WAAC is even mentioned in these threads is when the competitive players start yelling "DONT CALL ME WAAC JUST BECAUSE I LOOK TO WIN AND PLAY COMPETITIVELY!!!!!!!!!".
Thats a kneejerk reaction that some who have a guilty conscience have.
I will repeat what I said just last week in the other thread.
Competative play to me is...
1. Where both players want to win and the opponent have fun is a secondary objective.

Yep pretty much what I already said earlier on the thread, negative connotations and all that

Competitive: having a strong desire to win or be the best at something.

I like to be the one with the better looking models, better painted, fielded in an aggressive way and knowing my rules cold (or able to look up quickly). I want to win in all elements of the hobby. To be the best person people want to play against because it is fun even knowing it will be a hard battle.

I do Kendo and Chess, each is proper deadly serious competition, 40k is not, due to too many variables independent of my skill allowing a win or loss but the other elements of the hobby allow a feeling "full of win".

Going into a game where the primary objective is to win some sort of prize (usually in the form or store credit towards getting new models) and the secondary objective is having an enjoyable day of gaming with like minded people in a setting where you can learn new tips and tricks as well as modeling and army building advice with others who are also enjoying themselves, is NOT a bad way of looking at it.

You may think that one negates the other. Someone who is a WAAC player would think that that is a "bad way of looking at it". A true competitive player and for fun players think that is a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it.

The simple fact is that the primary and secondary objectives I mentioned go hand in hand very easily and going into it with a proper attitude can easily lead to all involved achieving the secondary objective with no problem whereas a few will achieve the primary objective. Achieving the secondary object is still a good thing because you and the other players had a day of enjoyable gaming even if you did not achieve the primary goal you had set for yourself to begin with.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Going into a game where the primary objective is to win some sort of prize (usually in the form or store credit towards getting new models) and the secondary objective is having an enjoyable day of gaming with like minded people in a setting where you can learn new tips and tricks as well as modeling and army building advice with others who are also enjoying themselves, is NOT a bad way of looking at it.

You may think that one negates the other. Someone who is a WAAC player would think that that is a "bad way of looking at it". A true competitive player and for fun players think that is a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it.

The simple fact is that the primary and secondary objectives I mentioned go hand in hand very easily and going into it with a proper attitude can easily lead to all involved achieving the secondary objective with no problem whereas a few will achieve the primary objective. Achieving the secondary object is still a good thing because you and the other players had a day of enjoyable gaming even if you did not achieve the primary goal you had set for yourself to begin with.

And that is pretty much 99% of tournament games. The other 1% is against the special types, but that can happen in any environment, I've played more TFGs in casual environments then any tournament I've ever been too.

The reality is that its not the army, or the environment or speed. Its the attitude of the players involved.

Unfortunately, it is the few WAAC players or TFG guy players who give the other 'normal' competative players a bad name. The idea is to not be prejudiced against them because of the vocal few who give them a stereotype. After all, Look at the greater group we all belong to "gamers". Outsiders often think of us as overweight stinky folk with no social skills and an inability to associate with anyone of the opposite sex and treat us in a prejudiced manner because of this image that a small vocal few give the rest of us. Why would we want to do that to other members of our own community? I say treat others based on their actual actions instead of how they are portrayed.

What's the exact difference between competitive and WAAC?

Martel732 wrote:
What's the exact difference between competitive and WAAC?

Competitve: aiming to win, but with grace, and consideration for your opponent.

WAAC: "IMA CRUSH YOU AND YOUR MANDOLLIES BECUZ YOU DIDNT PICK THE RIGHT ARMY THIS EDITION AND I SPENT OVER $300,000,000 INTO CURBSTOMPING AND TABLING EVERYONE I MEET, AND WILL OUT RIGHT CHEAT TO WIN".

Somehow I can see a load of heat from this hey-ho that's the difference I can see..

So a polite Eldar player that tables my BA is competitive, but a CSM player that bends rules and rules lawyers to win by 1 VP is WAAC? Even if the Eldar player chose Eldar because they are OP this edition? It's easy to be polite when you hold all the advantages.

Martel732 wrote:
What's the exact difference between competitive and WAAC?

Competive Players usally are good sports and don't mind loosing a game if it was a good close and clean one.
WAAC is just that Win At All Cost and generly bend things as much as posible their way as Lossing it not an acceptable outcome of ANY Game.

IMO, competitive play is playing to win, and there are several areas in which one can win:

1. Modeling / customizing an army.

2. Models painted to the best of one's ability.

3. Creating the best (to them) army list to fit one's desired tactics.

4. Careful deployment and use of terrain.

I think most try to do all of the above. Build a great looking force, tailor a list they think is best, and then employing that force as strategically as possible to clench victory.

Competitive play is also a great opportunity to learn more about your force as you get curb stomped or it's also a great venue for teaching less tactically skilled players with some 1 on 1 action that involves some coaching during the course of the battle (explaining why you did whatever, etc.).

All in all, it should be fun and enjoyable by all parties.

WAAC IMO is when someone does things that most would consider unacceptable by typical gaming norms. Cheating, being rude/abusive, bending rules interpretation, etc.

Rules disputes arise, but if a quick resolution doesn't surface, a simple dice roll-off is all that is needed. If someone can't do a roll-off, they may be WAAC. If a roll-off resulted in a bad call that was later discovered, I chalk it up as a mishap, perhaps the Chaos gods were tainting the battlefield.

Martel732 wrote:
So a polite Eldar player that tables my BA is competitive, but a CSM player that bends rules and rules lawyers to win by 1 VP is WAAC? Even if the Eldar player chose Eldar because they are OP this edition? It's easy to be polite when you hold all the advantages.

You listed two WAAC players, if your trying to bend rules or choose an army because its OP, then your clearly not being considerate to your opponent, it doesn't matter if your polite or not.

 happygolucky wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So a polite Eldar player that tables my BA is competitive, but a CSM player that bends rules and rules lawyers to win by 1 VP is WAAC? Even if the Eldar player chose Eldar because they are OP this edition? It's easy to be polite when you hold all the advantages.

You listed two WAAC players, if your trying to bend rules or choose an army because its OP, then your clearly not being considerate to your opponent, polite or no polite.

So if people don't self nerf, they are WAAC? So even though I build the best list possible, am I spared from being WAAC because I field BA? That doesn't seem any different than the Eldar guy fielding the best list he can field. As long as we are both polite.

How is it the Eldar player's fault that GW can't or won't do math?

Martel732 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So a polite Eldar player that tables my BA is competitive, but a CSM player that bends rules and rules lawyers to win by 1 VP is WAAC? Even if the Eldar player chose Eldar because they are OP this edition? It's easy to be polite when you hold all the advantages.

You listed two WAAC players, if your trying to bend rules or choose an army because its OP, then your clearly not being considerate to your opponent, polite or no polite.

So if people don't self nerf, they are WAAC? So even though I build the best list possible, am I spared from being WAAC because I field BA? That doesn't seem any different than the Eldar guy fielding the best list he can field. As long as we are both polite.

How is it the Eldar player's fault that GW can't or won't do math?

Unless they are in tourney practice, or in an actual tourney then unless the opponent is expecting it, then yeah tbh..

40k is not a competitive game, if you want to build for a competitive game the there are tons of other games that encourage tournament play.

Why cant people see that? every time I'm on Dakka I hear users all the time yelling all the time that 40k is not competitive yet, people will be happy to C+P Netlist X, Y and Z feeding more into the money abomination that is GW..

Crazy world, I tell ya..

Why play a game that has no meaningful winner? Why not paint the models then go play Starcraft?

Martel732 wrote:
Why play a game that has no meaningful winner? Why not paint the models then go play Starcraft?

Because 40k was all about a simulation or a recreation of a battle in the 41st millennium, not just "who can make the most OP list"

40k is meant to be an experience for both players with winning as a nice bonus, not something that should be main priority.

Not saying all games are like this, but 40k is deffo not a competitive game, (because when it is, its just plain abuse).

 happygolucky wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why play a game that has no meaningful winner? Why not paint the models then go play Starcraft?

Because 40k was all about a simulation or a recreation of a battle in the 41st millennium, not just "who can make the most OP list"

40k is meant to be an experience for both players with winning as a nice bonus, not something that should be main priority.

Not saying all games are like this, but 40k is deffo not a competitive game, (because when it is, its just plain abuse).

In that case, the game needs to more carefully reflect the fluff. And it doesn't.

Martel732 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So a polite Eldar player that tables my BA is competitive, but a CSM player that bends rules and rules lawyers to win by 1 VP is WAAC? Even if the Eldar player chose Eldar because they are OP this edition? It's easy to be polite when you hold all the advantages.

You listed two WAAC players, if your trying to bend rules or choose an army because its OP, then your clearly not being considerate to your opponent, polite or no polite.

So if people don't self nerf, they are WAAC? So even though I build the best list possible, am I spared from being WAAC because I field BA? That doesn't seem any different than the Eldar guy fielding the best list he can field. As long as we are both polite.

How is it the Eldar player's fault that GW can't or won't do math?

There is a big difference between "Nerfing" yourself and not fielding a WAAC List.
It sort of come down to this:
>Did you Choose your current army to “Crush” your enemies as fast as you can?
>Did you only choose units that would give you victory?
>Did you have fun last only because you Won?
These are a signs of a WAAC Player

>Did you choose your army because it looked cool and have stuck with it and tried to uses it even when it as nor “Competitive”?
>Did you choose your units because you fond them effective and look good.
>Did you have fun the last time you played win or loose
These are signs you are a Competitive Player.

Martel732 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why play a game that has no meaningful winner? Why not paint the models then go play Starcraft?

Because 40k was all about a simulation or a recreation of a battle in the 41st millennium, not just "who can make the most OP list"

40k is meant to be an experience for both players with winning as a nice bonus, not something that should be main priority.

Not saying all games are like this, but 40k is deffo not a competitive game, (because when it is, its just plain abuse).

In that case, the game needs to more carefully reflect the fluff. And it doesn't.

Yup, but that is because GW are incompetent at rules making, we shouldn't really encourage them buy buying up into the latest Netlist, every month giving the moneybags even more money, but hey-ho it still happens..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

>Did you choose your army because it looked cool and have stuck with it and tried to uses it even when it as nor “Competitive”?
>Did you choose your units because you fond them effective and look good.
>Did you have fun the last time you played win or loose
These are signs you are a Competitive Player.

Can I sig this? I like this

Sticking with something that's not competitive does not seem like something a *competitive* player would do.

"There is a big difference between "Nerfing" yourself and not fielding a WAAC List. "

I'm not seeing this difference. Either you are fielding what you consider to be one of the best possible lists from you codex or you are nerfing yourself, ie playing "narrative" or some such ting.

Martel732 wrote:
Sticking with something that's not competitive does not seem like something a *competitive* player would do.

Maybe with other games, but 40k is not competitive, its a game where you use units you want because they look cool, not because they will win you games, if they do give you the win, then that is a nice bonus. nothing more.

I would much rather play the polite eldar player with the cheesed out list in a competative game that walks over me than the jerk who bends and stretches the rules and fights every little thing that happens nitpicking.

This is because the eldar player is presenting a challenge to me in an open and friendly manner and is not abusing me directly and actually might care and hope that I am enjoying the game. I see them going into it using a skill set that i may be lacking in using an army that happens to be in the upswing.

To me WAAC is ALL about the attitude and not so much about the list.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I would much rather play the polite eldar player with the cheesed out list in a competative game that walks over me than the jerk who bends and stretches the rules and fights every little thing that happens nitpicking.

This is because the eldar player is presenting a challenge to me in an open and friendly manner and is not abusing me directly and actually might care and hope that I am enjoying the game. I see them going into it using a skill set that i may be lacking in using an army that happens to be in the upswing.

To me WAAC is ALL about the attitude and not so much about the list.

This is what I was thinking. I can't blame the Eldar player for what GW put in his book. I'd probably use it, too.

Before, someone else brings this up, I' better go ahead and say this....

Many players go out and buy a whole new army based solely upon which one has the most cheesy rules and is the most powerful. A lot of players consider these to be WAAC players.

I do not. I consider them to be competitive players with deep pockets. I still base my view of if they are WAAC or not on their actions in game and attitudes while playing.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Before, someone else brings this up, I' better go ahead and say this....

Many players go out and buy a whole new army based solely upon which one has the most cheesy rules and is the most powerful. A lot of players consider these to be WAAC players.

I do not. I consider them to be competitive players with deep pockets. I still base my view of if they are WAAC or not on their actions in game and attitudes while playing.

We've disagreed before, but I agree with this 100%.

You can also be a “Competitive Player” and take so called “Sub-Par List”.
I am always saying “What is wrong with BOTH players just taking what they want to play because:
>You love the Models
>They were great at one time, but now…
>You love the fluff behind the Unit.

Here are a couple big questions [I do know what these mean, at least to me]:
>What is Nerfing a list mean?
>What is a Non-Competitive List?
>Can a list in one Meta be WAAC in one and Non-Competitive in another?

">Can a list in one Meta be WAAC in one and Non-Competitive in another? "

I guess, but this is harder with the advent of the internets. Also, since many gamers are good at sniffing cheese, the metas will eventually converge on the same cheese.

Martel732 wrote:
What's the exact difference between competitive and WAAC?

Sports:
Competitive athletes train and compete with the intention of being as good as they can be, hopefully winning. WAAC athletes do the same, and also take steroids.

Gamers:
Competitive gamers practice and compete with the intention of being as good as they can be, hopefully winning. WAAC gamers do the same, and also cheat/exploit rules.

Martel732 wrote:
Sticking with something that's not competitive does not seem like something a *competitive* player would do.

"There is a big difference between "Nerfing" yourself and not fielding a WAAC List. "

I'm not seeing this difference. Either you are fielding what you consider to be one of the best possible lists from you codex or you are nerfing yourself, ie playing "narrative" or some such ting.

I disagree somewhat. I am an exceptionally competitive person, but my friends call me a "competitive casual gamer".
Meaning I can be very competitive, but have fun doing it and try to show a lot of sportsmanship, win or lose.
(I do get a bit bummed when I have really bad luck....which is rare, usually when I lose its either because I made mistakes or just got out played).

My first army was tau, I played them in 5th edition, it was a brutal learning experience - but in the end it really helped me be a better player, as it was kind of a handicap - that and I while I did not win any major event (usually finished near the top, took second once, third another time) it was incredibly satisfying doing it with Tau.
At one GT I even had people come by to see "the tau guy" or "woah...there really is a guy with tau here...that takes fortitude" (actual quote).

I played other armies later, as well I wanted to try more styles - and while I won almost every game with more modern armies - when it came time to events or compete - I played Tau.

But back to the quote - while I don't want to play my tau in events recently (not since all the codex hoppers jumped on my blueskins) but when I do play them, I don't make cheese lists.
Now, I am not going to bring vespid.....but I am not going to bring more than one riptide either.

So, sometimes my friends and I will play our "default" games - where we want good solid lists and games to have health competitive sporting games.

Other times someone may say "hey, want a game, I will be running a fluffly list , or a goofy test list...." which means the list might be subpar - so the other player should not try to bring a more optimized list.
(for example, I want to see if I can make a kroot army work....don't think I can, but it might be fun to try).

A good competitive game system to me is one where the rules are balanced well, and luck has an influence, but player skill (in list building, knowing rules, table tactics, unit tactics, etc.) is the biggest factor in determining result.
Tragically 40k is not quite there....

*edit: Typos

I will often go to competative events with "fluff" units or units that are not min/maxed out. People love to see my penal legion. I also do not do the whole mathhammer thing either. Often, I dont even know what army I am going to use as i will randomly pull out a list when i get to the tournament.
I then play to win ain a friendly manner. The only thing that usually keps me in the running is getting max points every time for stuff like display board, painting, fluff and so forth. But I enjoy playing in the atmosphere and oftenick up tips and tricks.

After reading multiple "competitive" threads it seems to me the problem here is the fact that in 40k the difference between a "tier1" list and a "tier 2" list is at the moment too great. A tier 2 list has little to no chance to win when matched up against a tier 1 list. In other games I have played in the past a player bringing a tier 2 list has some kind of chance even if matched against a tier 1 list. That is missing in 40k.

I played a game a couple of weeks ago and my opponent brought some kind of flyer. I had NOTHING in my lust to even have a chance to counter that. The game at that point became somewhat academic. I went through the motions but of course lost in the end. On the opposite side I played last week and had instances where my opponent could do nothing to my models because they had nothing in the list capable of penetrating the armor.

When the game gets to a point where a person can bring a list full of thing you have no chance of even damaging something is wrong. It is like a game of rock, paper, scissors and only being able to select 2 of the 3 and just hoping the opponent does not bring the thing you can't counter.

I know someone can spend some more $$$ and perhaps get some kind of counter, but because of the way codexes work even that might not help some players.

I have fun most of the games I play, but I. Know every time I set up a game there is a chance I will show up to the game with a bunch of paper when my opponent will have a list full of scissors. Then it is not fun for anyone. This happens too often in 40k. I like the models and like the painting part of the hobby, I just wish he game portion was a bit more playable.