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.

Before starting I would like to say that I am argumentative and that anyone that dislikes argument may not want to post here, just for the sakes of other's sanity and civility.

I DESPISE the thought that people who "Play to Win" are bad. I don't know about other areas, but in my area some people openly (verbally) attack me and a few other gamers for taking optimal lists and playing to win the game. I just don't understand how in a game where the objective is to win the mission, playing to win is frowned upon.

The Argument (from what I have gathered):
The general consensus seems to be that people who "Play to Win" do not play for fun. People who play to win are obviously fun-sucking monsters that will destroy your life in their rampage of optimizing lists and making (100% correct, but often game-changing) rules calls. These people are horrible and evil and therefore must be shunned from society or killed with fire.

My Personal Counter-Argument
Why in the world does anyone think that?

People who "Play to Win" do not play for fun

I absolutely play for fun. I obtain enjoyment from outplaying (possibly outwitting) my opponent tactically and, in extention, winning.

Those who "Play to Win" ruin the fun with rules calls

So just because we are playing a friendly game you should be immune to the rules? Why should that happen? Now, keep in mind there is a difference between rules CALLS and rules EXPLOITS. For example, the rule that if a skimmer moves flat out into terrain and immobilises itself (therefore wrecking itself) the passengers immediately die is a rules CALL. While something like the guerenteed 3+ Ward save Chosen WoC unit in fantasy would be an EXPLOIT - something never intended to be possible in the rules, but not noticed before the rules were released.

People who powergame have no sportsmanship

Excuse me? Like any other person, I say "Good Game" and shake my opponent's hand at the end of the game. I never gloat, I try to joke or make small talk during slow parts of a game, and I allow my opponents quiet during close parts of the game when they need to think.

How this argument pans out
1) I get called out and the person says everything from "you play to win, not for fun" to "you're a powergamer" to "you have no sportsmanship"
2) I counterargue everything seen above in my counterargument section, starting for the "I do play for fun" and then ending with "Sportsmanship."
3) He says "there is more to sportsmanship then that."
4) I ask "What?" and restate what I do for sportsmanship.
5) At this point (I think because he has run out of ideas) he says that I am too young to understand (I'm 17, so I doubt that I wouldn't know basic sportsmanship) and that I'll probably learn by the time I'm his age (mid 20's).
6) All I have to say to this is WTF are you talking about.

Why I HATE this way of thinking
1) Because there is nothing wrong with Playing to Win. First of all, I am playing for my own enjoyment. It is up to others to play for their own. I could understand that if I had an ability that allowed me to control my opponent's turns then yes, I would take away from my opponet's fun. But I don't. There is not much I can do past just playing the game that I can do for my opponent's enjoyment. Why should I build sub-optimal lists when I don't need to nor want to?
2) Because if my opponents don't know the rules, its their fault when it comes back to bite them in the ass. If I were to know exactly what they would try to do before they try it then I would warn them about a rule preventing them or puting them in danger, but I can't read minds.
3) People that argue against powergaming say "You are not playing to have fun, only to win." Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun? These kinds of games are designed so that you have to screw over your opponets in order to win. So should I purposely ignore weaknesses in my opponent's army? Shooting AP3 weapons at Terminators, throwing my Hammer units into enemy Tarpits, and other STUPID moves so that I force a tie every game that I would otherwise win?

So is there anything else to this? Why the hell to people hate powergaming/playing to win? Do they just not understand that playing to win can be the same as playing for fun? are they just QQing?

Defensive much?

I have no issue with optimizing your list, especially in a tournament setting, where it is to be expected.

Bear in mind that not all codexes are created equal. That's where a lot of the resentment comes from. The more recent, or more Imperial a codex is (double whammy for both) the more potent the cheesier units are. If the codexes are not balanced then an uberpowered hot codex list is utterly unbeatable by an older codex with less uber to its name, which makes the game against that list about as much fun as having your body vigorously rubbed by a maniac with a cheese grater. If it's not fun for BOTH parties it's not a fun game

I optimize my lists as much as my codex will allow (i play Necrons in tournament, so not much ) and run a vaariety of Ork lists for friendly games.

The reason I play orks for friendly games is that they are funny, and i play them for their sheer wackiness. If i happen to win, all the better. I play them to have fun. I often run non-optimal units, because they are more fun to use.

Tournaments- every little badly-phrased RAW argument matters, as there are prized involved, and everyone else will be raw-lawyering too, usually.

Friendly games- Just that. Nothing makes a game unfriendly like a 3 hour rules debate. Dice off and get on with it


I think the issue with playing to win isn't playing to win :0)

It's playing to win at the expense of everyone having a good time. I play to win, but it'll be a peaceful day on cadia before you'll find me nose to nose with my opponent, spraying them with phlegm as I 'explain' how this rule loophole and that overpowered unit inter-react to make them ungodly, despite clear indications that they are not supposed to.

This is called WAAC- Win at all costs. It is as enjoyable to play against as experimental bowel surgery without anaesthetic, unless you are a WAAC player yourself, and enjoy high decibel 'debates'

Play to win, by all means. We all like to win.

Don't ruin the game doing it though, or why play?

I think WAAC players in the friendly game scene is a bit much. Who wants to see there army get crushed when they only wanted a game for fun? I use Necrons, and my recent list has 40 warriors in it. It's fun to use, and I use it well. Although in Tournaments optimised lists and WAAC players are a bit more welcome.

zeekill wrote:
So is there anything else to this? Why the hell to people hate powergaming/playing to win? Do they just not understand that playing to win can be the same as playing for fun? are they just QQing?

I don't think it's a case of people hate 'playing to win', it's more a case of those that 'play to win' end up being a$$hats. There is a significant distinction between playing an optimal list and being a WAAC gamer. Significantly, as you have stated above, you play for fun, you just happen to enjoy playing with competitive/optimal lists, a WAAC gamer, as I see it, is someone that plays a min-maxed list (nob bikers, leafblower IG, dual-lash-prince etc etc) but derives their pleasure from completely destroying the enemy in 1 or 2 turns then gloating about it for the rest of the day, really rubbing it in that they absolutely pwned you and screeching their cheeto-breath-flavoured victory tale to anyone within earshot. Typically a WAAC gamer will also pick fights he KNOWS he will win (e.g, rather than going for the other guy in the club with an optimal/competitive list, he will go for the 10 year old kid with a 'these are the models I own because I only have the battleforce and I can't get anymore until I do some chores' list), and then will gloat EVEN MORE. The main point of the matter is that your typical WAAC gamer will want to go for an easy win, whereas you, as I have deduced from your post, would rather go up against another optimal list in order to enjoy the tactical challenge.

Also in the event of the WAAC gamer being defeated, he/she would immediately launches into a tirade about how the opponents army is broken, the rules are borked, the opponent cheated (when in most cases it is they who are guilty of one or more of the above).

Personally I don't mind people taking optimal lists, but it's a bit demotivating when I am table in turn 2 by a leafblower IG list, but then again I would rather play a game over an hour or two in length, have a coffee and generally have fun and banter over my games. The point at which I can tell I will lose from deployment is the point at which the game stops being fun, but everyone enjoys the game differently.

But there is most certainly a difference between a person who plays optimal lists, and a WAAC gamer.

Exactly...

Your friend is probably just not accepting the fact that you might want to spend some time polishing off your list instead of just lumping stuff together.

Out of my little gaming group, I am probably the most competitive. I always want to clarify rules, and I'm always the one to advise my friends on army lists and/or tactics. However, I never stop the fun flowing.

The guys don't mind me being me (and not having a painted army. They're big on P&M), and I don't mind them being a little more sloppy about army list optimization and the like. Tactics-wise, I often point out what the best tactic might have been after the movement, or at least what I think it is, and they always thank me for it!

I think there are many people out there who don't like people being mean, and, like Ascalam said, extend it to cover your habits. A pity though, 40k should be a far friendlier community. The game-scope certainly allows for different things to be enjoyed, including tactics and tac-ing.

I forgot to mention that actually.
I don't play to WAAC. Like you said, the day a 3 hour rules debate comes up mid-game is the day I shoot myself. But when its as simple as showing someone 3 rules combined to result in something like the flat-out immobilization unit death I described earlier I'll take the 2 minutes to show the rule or the 3 additional mintues to explain it if need be.

I've gotten into hour long arguments (not while in the middle of the game, mind you) about what exactly the hive guard rule is, but I would never do that in the middle of any game. Any rules quarrel that lasts more than 5 minutes I say just dice off for now, unless their argument holds no ground whatsoever.

Ascalam wrote:I think the issue with playing to win isn't playing to win :0)

It's playing to win at the expense of everyone having a good time. I play to win, but it'll be a peaceful day on cadia before you'll find me nose to nose with my opponent, spraying them with phlegm as I 'explain' how this rule loophole and that overpowered unit inter-react to make them ungodly, despite clear indications that they are not supposed to.

This is called WAAC- Win at all costs. It is as enjoyable to play against as experimental bowel surgery without anaesthetic, unless you are a WAAC player yourself, and enjoy high decibel 'debates'

Play to win, by all means. We all like to win.

Don't ruin the game doing it though, or why play?

I couldn't agree more
Playing to win is fine, I play to win (whats the sense in playing a game and trying to loose?!), but playing to win at all costs isn't why a lot of people are into the hobby. It's a game, it should be fun for everyone involved, not just the guy who likes to take the same old list he found on the internet and bend the rules just to let them smash face.

Well, I strongly disapprove of finding lists on the internet. That means you're not willing to take time and enjoy the stresses of "ARGH SHOULD I TAKE X OR Y THIS IS DRIVING ME NUTS!!!!". WAAC much?

Fun times.

Theres nothing wrong with playing to win. Its broken rules and units that they are complaining about. You have to realize that this game is made by people, people who can and OFTEN do make mistakes. The WORST offenses though are when they accidentally overpower something just to boost sales. See dark eldar 9 venom lists. People dont want to constantly fight nothing but lists consisting of the most broken, undercosted, overpowered units spammed across the field. It also kills diversity, as if they want to compete and the only things showing up are broken lists to face off against, they themselves are forced to make a broken list and it gives the impression that the game is fundamentally flawed.

You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.

Tournaments are where you can pull out all the stops, but even then people who dont like units your playing that they feel personally are broken may dock you points for sportsmanship, and tell you it was because of your attitude or some other precieved slight. Usually these hyppocrites are running similarly broken units.

If you bring the same list every week to your game, and it just wtfowns everything, people start thinking to compete they have to play dirty too, and then all the variety and suprise is sucked out of the game in favor of cookie cutter proven winners lists, a little bit like how magic the gathering is now. For a year there was a broken combo so bad that basically it won every tourney, and if you dident run that combo you were throwing your chances away. THEY however can ban cards to rectify this, which they did. GW does not, they just make cheeze lists pay in tournaments with harsh win conditions for the OP lists going around (sometimes).

You can look across the table when your good, and say to yourself, Im gonna roll this list, this list is going to obliterate me, or this guy is decent, and has a decent list its going to be 50/50. Taking chance out of the game moots the point.

TLDR nobody wants to watch mike tyson fight pee wee herman (well thats a bad example because everyone wants to see that, but you get the point)

'TLDR nobody wants to watch mike tyson fight pee wee herman (well thats a bad example because everyone wants to see that, but you get the point)'

Gods, fight of the century there.. I have $20 on Herman

For the record OP, I would have no issue playing you, as long as you told me ahead of time that you like playing hardcore. I would then bring a hardcore list and throw down.

Running a 'just for fun' list into a meatgrinder isn't fun, but running a vicious lsit against another equally vicious list can be a blast if the other guy isn't a TFG

Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.

Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.

zeekill wrote:The general consensus seems to be that people who "Play to Win" do not play for fun.

What are you talking about? What "general consensus" are you referring to? Show me.

It's really just how you go about things. If you take two lists for pick up, one nails the other more balanced and communicate with your opponent before the game what kind of game both you and they are looking for and play that kind of game then neither side should feel hard done by. Also it's how you play the game there's being competitive and there's being a jerk.

It's like saying "I want to be rich" no one is gonna say "oh my god that's terrible" but then if you got out and start mugging and stabbing up grannies it's gonna be frowned upon.

When we play a game against another opponent you enter into a social contract to act in a reasonable manner, violate that, then yes people will have a low opinion of you.

The best way I always here it put is

"the aim of the game is to win, the reason to play is to have fun"

They are not mutually exclusive.

Ascalam wrote:'Running a 'just for fun' list

This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.

Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.

(No offence meant)

I think you might need to look up the Timmy, Johnny & Spike player profile analysis article Mark Rosewater came up with in Magic the Gathering as it would probably answer a lot of your questions. The ideas he puts there for different playstyles can equally be applied to warhammer.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

If this was in reference to a magic the gathering game you would be a Spike, you fun is obtained from winning in the most effective way you can find. The joy of having your cards effortlessly destroy and win you the game is the reason you play. This analysis can be applied to Warhammer just as easily.

There's nothing wrong with that, but not all players play the game just for winning. For instance I play/mainly paint as I enjoy the whole mythos and story behind the game and often when I do field an army it has some bizarre ideas that probably won't work, but occasionally they do. It doesn't matter that my plague marines got slaughtered, that my Daemon prince got killed by a bunch of imperial guard troopers or that my dreadnought went nuts and ran into a bog, the fact that my newly painted chaos cultists with novelty hats succeeded in killing the enemy priest is where my fun comes from. I can then with my mates set up some more ideas for the next battle, about how this has effected the morale of the imperial guard or that more cultists might join my side due to a daemon possessing the priest.

So in the situation when I'm fielding my casual chaos cultist army and then I'm faced with a powergame web based army list designed to demolish all opposition in 2 turns from there own deployment zone by shooting then my fun is diminished and so is my opponents as it was pointless.

Now if your talking tournaments then play to win, I mean thats what they are all about.

Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun?

Nope, other way around. Go back to the rulebook and read the first thing they say about the rules.

First rule of 40k fight club
"Fun" (then both parties determine what's fun. Whether it's fluff, WAAC etc). It's when there is a mismatch that one party cracks a fruity.

Second rule of 40k fight club
"Win" (it's game, between two opponents. Obviously there will be win, loss, or draw). If you can't handle loss, don't play. A win can be a crushing, absolute victory where you hear the lamentations of the women, or a 'good game mate, til next time' affair.

It's not that hard... seems like more a question of how to choose suitable opponents.

bolo wrote:

zeekill wrote:The general consensus seems to be that people who "Play to Win" do not play for fun.

What are you talking about? What "general consensus" are you referring to? Show me.

The one made by the people that are against my way of playing in my LGS. I thought that was obvious.

zeekill wrote:
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.

That's exactly the point I tried to put across in my post. A WAAC gamer WOULD go for the younger player because they KNOW that they would steamroll them, resulting in an easy win without any challenge. Whereas (as you have pointed out) you want a bit of a challenge to your game, which puts you in the category of not a WAAC gamer.

Any game I play needs to be naturally fun without me having to inject it artificially with poor tactics. As the saying goes "don't hate the player, hate the game", there is no real excuse for any fully released game in this day and age to have such imbalance as to allow powergaming and exploits. This does not excuse any lowlifes that try to take advantage of poor balance though, using the strongest build from the strongest codex against everyone dose not make you a better player, it just means you need a crutch. If you are good and know you can win with your best list, try expanding a bit and making some of those mediocre options turn to gold? The OP doesn't sound like one of these jerks, but it's something to keep in mind for anyone playing in an unbalanced game.

In 1 vs.1 competitive games the ideal situation is to lose half the time, in my opinion anyway. If your win/loss ratio is 50/50 against someone it is a good indication that you and he are evenly matched. I feel as bad as if I were cheating when I don't play to my best ability, it robs my opponent of a challenging game. Sportsmanship plays a big part here. If you aren't at a tournament, give your opponent his take-backs, poin out when he moves into the range and line of sight of your crazy supergun if you don't think he noticed, and help him play at his 100% too. Even in a tournament there's no need for silly psychological warfare beyond maybe wearing a silly hat or a lady gamer showing some cleavage (most of us guys don't mind that kind of distraction).

This concept of the WAAC player confounds me. I can't understand why someone would want to artificially inflate his ego with cutthroat tactics at the consequence of neither player having much fun. That's the point of it all right, to have fun? Playing dirty is very different than playing to win, and I think people being unable to distinguish the two is where this whole thing started. I honestly had never heard of WAAC or TFG before I came here to dakka (ok I had heard of tfg but that means temple flameguard to me). I had met people that fit those profiles loosely but I just called them poor sports, insecure, jerks, and an assortment of other things that the mods would not like me typing out. The fact that this phenomenon has grown so wide that it needs TWO acronyms saddens me. Sadder still is the fact that I have only noticed these types playing gw games, I'm no gw fan but, the industry leader deserves better than to be a rat's nest.

snowman40k wrote:

Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun?

Nope, other way around. Go back to the rulebook and read the first thing they say about the rules. .

Ok.... well there's a quote on page 1 towards the bottom. And then on page 2 it goes on to talk about dice and stuff... Wierd how they left the top 1/3 of page 2 blank though.....



But in all seriousness I was just listing, not in any particular order of importance. Overall here is my flowchart-type-thing (not really a flowchart):

What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun
How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp. Just, you know, on turn 4, not turn 1.


Actually now might be a good time to introduce one of my friend's favorite quotes:

If you are not playing a board game with the intent to lose all of your friends, you arn't playing it right.

Only half true obviously, but still just putting it out there.

there is a difference between a play to win player and a play to WIN player

everyone plays to win, thats just fact, but its a hope of winning, its not your primary concern, the gaming experience is the concern, in the end you won't care if you win or lose as long as that win/loss was enjoyed by both parties

play to WIN players (or WAAC players) are disgusting forms of life who believe a game of toy soldiers is a 1 player affair, they don't care about everyone involved having fun, as long as they have fun and only they win
they will lie
they will cheat
they will optimise
they will do anything to guarantee a win for them
your not playing for your enjoyment, your playing for 2 peoples enjoyment, or more, if your only concerned with your own fun then your a selfish git who needs to realise your playing a game of 2 people, its like a relationship, you both have to work to make the experience fun, if one of you completely dominates the entire experience the other person is gonna be left feeling like a sack of horse dung.

but then thats another reason I stopped playing GW games, all the gamers have the same attitude these days

Hmm I sort of understand where you are coming from OP.

I like to play for fun but I also enjoy trying new tactics with units (Flames and 40k), winning, and playing by the rules.

A few times lately I have called people up on rules (simply because I have read the rules back to front for Flames of War and I am quite new so I remember them well) and they have been quite important game changing rules. For example...

Hit by Artillery you are pinned and NOT gone to ground (+1 to hit modifier for anyone else). This is in the RULES book. However the group I play with were saying you were gone to ground making it damn hard to hit that unit with anything else. I showed them the rules and they all agreed but I got some stick for bringing it up :/

I love to play for fun but I love playing by the sodding rules. If we can't agree roll off but on obvious rules then it makes sense to get it out of the way for next time.

There's trying to win, and 'playing to win'.

No one tries to lose do they? You always try to make a competitive effort because that makes a game more exciting, you put your heart into it.

But then there's 'playing to win'. Where winning is the priority and made at the expense of the other player's fun. Some people can only have fun if they are winning. Maybe the person trying to win is having fun because that's what they enjoy, but it doesn't mean the other person is. But if you don't care about your opponent, then you are a bad gamer.

If winning and losing means more than a laugh afterwards then at least one person involved is taking it too seriously. Nobody likes a sore loser or a bad winner.

Play to have fun, don't 'play to win'. There's more to gaming than winning, if winning is a priority, then it'll always come at the expense of other aspects.

Look, there is trying to win and WAAC.

WAAC players are dirty. They cheat, they lie and try to advantage themselves. For example, some WAAC said Wood Elves can only stand and shoot. They ignore rules like str 4 bows at short range and other Wood Elf Rules.

I play to have fun and not WAAC. If winning is a priority you'll find yourself short of opponents.

Hmm some good points there Howard.

If my battle if generally going bad to worse I know myself I will quieten down and generally not be too happy BUT after the game I lighten up, always shake hands and congratulate the other player and generally talk about silly moments during the game, be that dice rolls or units doing crazy things. I love the after game talks just as much as the game sometimes.

An example might add more input, as we all seem to have different interpretations of "playing to win":

I was playing with another guy at my LGS, who had a monster stuck between a piece of impassible terrain and one of his own units, but he didn't realize it because he forgot about the 1" rule. Which I agree is a stupid rule, but either way it exists in the rulebook.

We both brought our most optimised lists (later we found out his was so optimised that it was 300 points over :\ ) But either way when he tried to move the monster into positon on turn 2-3 (NOT TURN 1, or I would have let him re-deploy it) I called him on the 1" rule and while he had to accept it he cried "BS" and "I can't belive you actually called that on me" for at least the next HOUR of play, really ticking me and everyone watching the game off (I assume this because after that hour one of the bystanders told him to shut up). Since then he has refused to play me (clearly because he is afraid of his rulebook.... )

zeekill wrote: when he tried to move the monster into positon on turn 2-3 (NOT TURN 1, or I would have let him re-deploy it) I called him on the 1" rule

See, in that situation I would have to side with him. If you agree it's a BS rule you should man up and let him nudge his models back a bit. There is no rule in the book that obligates you to do this but sometimes good sportsmanship means rising above your grievances. The fact that you called him out just because he was hasty in his desire to jockey for a good position just helps make it clear it wasn't about the rule in question, but his aggressive tactics, that is a different issue altogether. The way you describe it, you sound as if your using bad rules as a weapon to combat tactics you don't find agreeable.

I think the general perception people have of WAAC players is of hyper-active obsessives who leach onto the latest internet fad, do mathhammer and play generic uber-netlists of doom (or slight variations there of). I'd argue that such a perception is generalised and a touch harsh. I've nothing against WAAC, provided the opponent isn't a total and is arrogant about it - to me its more to do with personalites rather than the WAAC premise. I'd also argue that more laid back gamers just like to collect/paint/use what they like - either the models or background, they may not care for the WAAC attitude at all and find it jarring (if not offensive) to what they consider the 'spirit' of the hobby to be - again I think that's a generalisation that is also a touch harsh. To me it's about attitudes. For instance I'm completely cold to mathhammer - I don't need to make calculations to tell me that a meltagun will be useful, nor do I need equations to work out how many times my missile launchers will hit/kill/destroy - I often find dice too random and the dice gods too fickle, so why bother?

I also think that WAAC is, in general, more of an American stance - Americans strike me as being a naturally competitive people (am I wrong? I mean no offense with this personal observation), whilst most Europeans, for instance, are more laid back about such things in general. I'm not saying there aren't any competitive players throughout Europe, it just strikes me that the majority of articles/posts I see on WAAC/Mathhammer/the 'Meta-Game' etc, are from Americans, who seem to embrace the tournament scene with a lot of vigour (or at least a lot more vocally) compared to, say, here in the U.K. Is it fair to say the tournament scene is a bigger deal in America than in the U.K (country size comparisons apart)?

Of course WAAC players have fun, I have fun writing lists of all kinds, be they filled with the tournament cheese I've heard about or else heavily themed. I think the way for WAAC and for more laid back fluffy players to understand one another is to play a game using either army - is an overtly competitive army fun to play with/against in a more casual game? I think a lot of people who are vocally against WAAC simply don't want that attitude in their hobby, life's stressful enough without making every game a power struggle. For tournaments, it's a different story, as it is if you have regular friends/opponents who get the same enjoyment out of making the most competitive lists possible - but for random games against stranger's, it may be a bit too much for some people - who don't strictly care for winning - for some it's simply about playing, regardless of the outcome.

I think WAAC players help highlight problems with the rules and army lists in ways that more casual gamers don't - so in terms of the 'meta-game' (if you care for the term at all) they bring things into perspective.

@zeekill - I really think it's more about player's personalities and the way people carry themselves, more than the WAAC attitude in itself - I'd argue that a WAAC player may care so much about winning that for many opponent's it drains any kind of fun from a game. It's like randomly going paintballing for a bit of a laugh with your friends, when one decides to stop off at their house, only to turn up in a Ghillie Suit with a ridiculousy high powered paintball gun, body armour, paint grenades, a rocket launcher and a penchant for judo throws. Sometimes it's just not cool

zeekill wrote:

Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.

Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.

That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.

Because GW is as balanced as a seesaw with one person on it.

Fun and winning should be equal partners.