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 have a rule.

That rule is "never buy a model just to get the rules."

You HAVE to like it for some other reason for it to be a worthwhile investment farther on down the line, because your investment will most likely be useless in 6 months otherwise.

You can buy a model because you like the way it looks and the rules are great and the concept of a super-buff hero flying around on his jump pack taking on giant enemy monster is cool - that's great! But if you bought into centurions because they were the best thing ever last edition, you have a fairly fugly paperweight collection right about now.

Isn't that right, guy with three wraithknights and 50 windriders with scatter lasers?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

What part of my paragraph insulted you? The part where I said that I personally don’t like playing against WAAC players? Or the part where I said people can play as they like, but I don’t want to play that way?

And I know they aren’t the same thing, but WAAC players also have optimized lists.

Maybe you’ve been accused of being a WAAC player and now have a complex about it?

You seemed to be inferring that all players with optimized lists are WAAC players, and that tournament-goers are also among them. WAAC means “win at all costs” and includes lying, cheating, and other unsportsmanlike behavior, which is extremely rare at tournaments, and doesn’t stick around long when it is seen. (In fact, good sportsmanship is very common at tournaments.)

You should think about replacing the term with “competitive” instead of generalizing and inferring that everyone who wants to play a serious game is a jerk that will do anything to win. If you did already know that, you certainly did not make it clear in your post.

Also I’ll ignore the thinly veiled insult.

WAAC isn't a list.

WAAC isn't an interest in getting a good win ratio.

WAAC isn't a desire to place well in organised play.

WAAC is the how of those things. And it's not something all those sharing any or all of those things are.

Someone fielding a powerful army isn't necessarily WAAC.

Someone fielding an average army, then deliberately slow playing? Probably WAAC.

Someone asking to check a rule in your Codex, probably isn't WAAC.

Someone asking to see every rule in your Codex as they come up? Quite possibly WAAC.

To me a WAAC player is anyone who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules.

Once you start cheating to win then you aren’t even playing the game anymore.

You can be a competitive player and still have a good game with your opponent.

So a WAAC player is one who tries to show up with the best force they can, play a clean game, works to know the rules, and helps me when I am unclear on the rules?

And that is the guy you don't want to splay?

I play to win if I can unless me and my game partners have decided on a themed or different lists.

However, I am probably not the best person at min-maxing so I end up just bringing whatever has worked for me, and often I play sub-par faction traits as I collect certain sub-factions that I'd rather stick to(like Saim-hann when playing Craftworlds).

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Competitive players (IE ones with optimized lists like you mentioned,) and WAAC are not the same thing. Please don’t insult people just because you don’t like their style of play.

What part of my paragraph insulted you? The part where I said that I personally don’t like playing against WAAC players? Or the part where I said people can play as they like, but I don’t want to play that way?

And I know they aren’t the same thing, but WAAC players also have optimized lists.

Maybe you’ve been accused of being a WAAC player and now have a complex about it?

maybe read my sig and get your terminology straight

Step 1: Build an army.

Step 2: Play a game.

Step 3: Was it a blowout?
You destroyed? Swap the MVP or runner up out for something (anything) else.

You got destroyed? Swap out something that disappointed you for something that'll do more for your list.

Not a blowout? Good, you had a good game.

Step 4: Play a few more games.
Are you winning more than 75%? Swap the MVP or runner up out for something (anything) else.

Are you losing more than 75%? Swap out something that disappointed you for something that'll do more for your list.

Step 5: Go to step 4.

Step 6: You fail at directions. This step is unreachable.

This won't provide a tournament-winning list, but it'll fit you into your meta and let you toy around with different units.

More generally, the idea should either be:
a) Competitive: You're trying to be the best you can be in the competitive sense. You're aiming for a 100% win rate (you won't get it, but it's the goal). There's nothing WAAC about list construction; the stronger, the better.

b) Casual: You want to fit into the local meta. If you're winning too much, tone down. If you're losing too much, tone up. Aim for a 60% win rate, and everyone's happy.

Unfortunately, people aren't entirely (a) or (b). Most people are somewhere in between. And wherever you are, if it's not A or B, people who beat you are WAAC players with a netlist, and people who you beat are CAAC losers who don't care.

If a WAAC player is a cheater, then he’s a cheater. Why use any other word for it. Get your terminology straight. There’s a difference.

A WAAC player slow plays/fast plays. Insults you while you’re playing. Interprets rules to their own benefit and to the detriment of yours. Builds skewed army lists and I list tailors so that the opponent won’t have a fun time playing. He isn’t looking for a competitive game, he’s looking for complete domination of the opponent.

 Blackie wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I like reading the fluff and painting models just fine. But when we’re at the table I’d like to have an engaging and interesting game, which means I am going to, at the very least, put together a list that can compete.

You don’t have to actually run your complete assault marine company on the table for me to appreciate how it looks as I slaughter it for the next 1-2 hours. You could just show me a pic and then bring something viable so that the winner of the game is actually in question.

If it's taking you more than 30 minutes to slaughter 2000 points of Assault Marines you're doing something wrong.

No, you're just playing a real 40k game with real armies.

Compared to playing a game of 40k with fake armies?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If a WAAC player is a cheater, then he’s a cheater. Why use any other word for it. Get your terminology straight. There’s a difference.

A WAAC player slow plays/fast plays. Insults you while you’re playing. Interprets rules to their own benefit and to the detriment of yours. Builds skewed army lists and I list tailors so that the opponent won’t have a fun time playing. He isn’t looking for a competitive game, he’s looking for complete domination of the opponent.

Thats all great but you were using WAAC and optimized list interchangeably, and that is not what the words mean. Get your terminology straight. That's all

I play the units I like, I enjoy the units that work. If they happen to coincide, so much the better.

I spend a crapton of time painting, listening to audio books, reading 40k books, browsing lore discussion at multiple places, browsing paintwork and asking paint questions multiple places, converting, playing 40k video games, narrative 40k events and RP, playing silly units or gimmick lists, etc.

But I also play to do well. Gimmick or not I'm going to construct the list well. Often I'm just going to build the best list I can. I find it hilarious when the neckbeard parade tries to say it makes me less a part of the hobby or some gak. Like okay fine mate, if it makes you happy. I've never seen an instance of it that wasn't just salt directly fueled from losing anyway TBH.

I buy and build what I like. The power of units and armies will continuously change but typically not your love of a look/lore for a unit. Its why I've never been tempted to toss my stuff on eBay for next to nothing.

Fist of all, WAAC is "win at all costs" which infers rules are only followed if you get caught.

Anyway "building the army you like" could very well be based on a "competitive" or "advantageous" selection with the rules firmly in mind.

I find when models are put together and painted to a reasonable standard all this discussion is pointless: they would not have put in the effort if they did not like them.

We have all seen the roughly put together (if at all) and bare minimum painted (if at all) armies as per the "flavor of the month".
Mind-you some people are ONLY interested in the game aspect and have zero interest in the models themselves.

I play Black Templar Space Marines.
If anyone could claim playing with a handicap, I could.
I have a Grey Knight army as well if anyone is asking...

I like most everything in 40k so I feel advantageous models ARE a consideration to pick up and paint for use.
I have Imperial Knights as well as AM/IG which I have fielded in the most advantageous way I could to show I can play that almost auto-win card at any time.

I like to show every army has a good chance if you are careful in selection and synergies.
Sometimes "soup" feels right both by rules and the "fluff" if that is any consideration.

I had a bit of a dislike for the Primarus Marines to be in my BT's, so I have found them to look and perform exceptionally well in Deathwatch, so that is where they are going.

It is not really an either/or it is a blend of look/fluff/value for points/army focus/tactics/strategy.
It is all a consideration for the enjoyment of the game.

Despite all claims to the contrary, you want to at least win on occasion.
To lose every single game is a disservice to you and your opponents.

I find most people enjoy close games with the odd total win. Most people are happier in an environment where they've a good chance of winning and not a guarantee of losing each time.

People who lose every single game are more likely to try other games or leave the wargame scene entirely; or only resort to painting. Simply put losing every time is demoralizing even if winning isn't your primary objective. If every loss is also a wipeout then the winner also loses fun because they are just steamrolling*


A skilled player VS an unskilled is the worst matchup ever for both people. It can be fun the first few times, but quickly becomes a drag for both. The skilled gets no challenge whilst the unskilled is being challenged too much.


This thread is also making the mistake of inferring that skilled VS unskilled is the same as win at all costs VS fluffy list building - which is incorrect.
You can build a very fluffy list that is well build and wins games through good play. Similarly a bad player with the statistically best list there is can still lose every game (or near enough).

If you want a fast show of this try Magic the Gathering and put a really good deck in the hands of a newbie and a really bad deck in the hands of a pro. Both will struggle as the pro won't have the tools nad the newbie won't know how to use the deck to make it work (accepting that sometimes the newbie will win because some decks are very simplistic).



I also second the views that WAAC is a term with a strong negative association and is nothing to do about skill of list or play; but refers to an attitude of play. You can be a WAAC and have a terrible list and be a terrible player. A WAAC also doesn't have to win every game, they can lose a lot even though they are likely cheating along the way (in fact a person with a WAAC mentality who loses a lot is more likely to either army jump a lot or cheat because they will consider that the opponent has unfair advantage)


*in computer games a lot of people stop matches in games like Total War when they are at a point where they can beat any other faction. Ergo at the stage where all they have to do is go through the motions to win the game rather than have any challenge.

WAAC is a meaningless term. No one agrees on what it means. Its WIn at all cost, even if cheating! its win at all cost following all the detailed and intricate rules! its Win at all cost and only takes good units! Its win at all cost and its a fluffy list that is played exceptionally well!

Its crap. People who use it are trolls trying to stir up emotions.

I've never built a spam WAAC army, but I've never built a truly kneecapped army. I HAVE run armies that are tricky to run, though. Somewhere in the middle of the two extremes the OP lists is where I build my lists for every game I play.

I play Slaanesh Daemons and Renegades and Heretics, so...

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
To me a WAAC player is anyone who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules.

Once you start cheating to win then you aren’t even playing the game anymore.

You can be a competitive player and still have a good game with your opponent.

So I can just start using the old southern term for African Americans because I decided “to me, lt doesn’t have negative connotation,” right? Yeah that sounds like a way to get shot.

Win at all costs does carry negative meaning, whether you want it to or not, and using the term broadly is either severe ignorance or an attempt to troll. If you mean competitive, say that.

Also, not only can competitive players have good games with opponents, that’s the norm. I’ve seen far more negative behavior from people claiming tournaments are bad than I ever have from tournaments.

 Elbows wrote:
I don't build an army, if I'm honest. I like Eldar. I have since I started playing in 2nd edition. I more or less collect and paint all the units in the codex that I enjoy or can find reasonably priced. I never buy according to a list. I may adjust an occasional weapon (RIP scatter lasers on war walkers), or add a model or two to a squad on occasion - but I just collect "the army", not "an army". My purchases are never in line with what I want to build in a list. It's just "that's cool, I'll try it".

The result is I have 6,000+ points of both of my primary armies. I try to take different styled lists almost every time I play - often tailoring the list to the story in our narrative campaign. I dislike mathhammer immensely but that stems from being a military history fan, and a historical wargamer alongside things like 40K.

I've had very serious and conflict-intensive jobs. Wargaming is a hobby. It's about rolling dice and having fun with my buddies. Turning that into a competitive environment is pointless to me.

Exalted

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
How do you make an army? Is it a WAAC army or an army you like?

I hear people say some of the choices I make for my necron army aren't good because "That unit iz t3h suxx0r5!" Well, Maybe I just like that unit, or I feel that another unit isn't fitting with the army background I created.

Plus as I see it,. one new rules change can nerf a WAAC army at GWs whim, but the army I like will always be the army I like.

I built WAAC when I entered the hobby, after winning several tournaments in my local area I went for whatever I felt like and despite not having the same level of success (which was completely foreseeable) I had more fun. Now I'm building whatever I find cool

the_scotsman wrote:
I have a rule.

That rule is "never buy a model just to get the rules."

You HAVE to like it for some other reason for it to be a worthwhile investment farther on down the line, because your investment will most likely be useless in 6 months otherwise.

You can buy a model because you like the way it looks and the rules are great and the concept of a super-buff hero flying around on his jump pack taking on giant enemy monster is cool - that's great! But if you bought into centurions because they were the best thing ever last edition, you have a fairly fugly paperweight collection right about now.

Isn't that right, guy with three wraithknights and 50 windriders with scatter lasers?

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree on Centurions being ugly.

Also?

Planning is for your terrain collection. Not your army (YMMV)

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I just build whatever theme I like the most. Aesthetics and fluff are the most important parts of the hobby to me. I used to play in tournaments and stuff but I don't find enjoyment in that anymore.

I honestly hate playing against WAAC players. Nothing is more boring to me than an optimized list.

So what do you do when someone brings a beautiful fluffy army that's also highly optimized?

My lists have to have stories. All units and characters are named and have a background and a role to play in he story the game is telling. Effectiveness of the units is not a consideration. It’s 5e same when I paint and model the units. It all adds to the story. Winning or losing doesn’t matter as much as he story.

I build the best army I can within a theme I like. I like tanks, so I'll design a mechanized guard army. It will be thematic and fluffy (mechanized infantry supported by armour), but I'll generally only take the superior LR chassis and ensure my vehicles have optimal wargear. Same goes for the infantry, with a few exceptions.

Basically, I pick a theme, pick appropriate units for the theme, and equip with them with optimal wargear. My armies therefore are never WAAC/A grade tournament tier, but they're competitive enough to not fold over against such armies, and likewise won't curb stomp weaker armies because I don't fish for broken combinations or build around overpowered units generally.

If we really want to get philosophical about terminology, calling someone WAAC is just a form of "Othering". It is a word we use to disparage people we believe are "bad". It is therefore no wonder discussions with that word get heated, especially in such a binary discussion as WAAC or Build the army you like.

In fact, same is done by talking about casuals although casual can be negative/benign depending on what group you belong to unlike WAAC which has a universally bad connotation.

In the end all that matters is to enjoy a rich and lively hobby. If you don't like playing someone then don't. If you want to play a certain way then try to find like-minded souls to join you. If you are a bit of a go-with-the-flow person like myself then just enjoy whatever.

I build and paint far too slowly to chase rules, even if I were inclined to.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
To me a WAAC player is anyone who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules.

Once you start cheating to win then you aren’t even playing the game anymore.

You can be a competitive player and still have a good game with your opponent.

So I can just start using the old southern term for African Americans because I decided “to me, lt doesn’t have negative connotation,” right? Yeah that sounds like a way to get shot.

Win at all costs does carry negative meaning, whether you want it to or not, and using the term broadly is either severe ignorance or an attempt to troll. If you mean competitive, say that.

Also, not only can competitive players have good games with opponents, that’s the norm. I’ve seen far more negative behavior from people claiming tournaments are bad than I ever have from tournaments.

I wonder if this counts as a Reducto Ad Hitlerium or not.

You using this internet abbreviation for a term that has debated meaning only within the confines of the internet community surrounding a game of plastic toy soldiers is JUST LIKE using possibly the most widely acknowledged racial slur in recent human history!