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.

Hey hey,

I was posting in a Throne of Skulls thread and thought it better to have a thread on it.

I just wanted to brainstorm my thoughts on competitive war gaming and see what others had to say .

I've been war-gaming for 10 years which isn't as long as a fair amount in the community but it's a fair amount. Being a competitive person I have found myself stretching to become more and more competitive and to win more and more games. As anyone who has looked at my article or my blog 40kwithoutluck will see I am a lot about using tactics such as models footprint to force opponent move, they can't claim the relic/objective as my flyer base is over it etc and they can't end their move within an inch. I guess to some players this is rules lawyering and using the rules in an advantageous way... in the same way precision shooting the middle of a unit to force a out of coherency to then force them to move disrupting heavy weapons etc could be conceived as win at all costs.

Each of us has their own preferences and I understand that a vast majority of players like to turn up to a game with their army dominated by choices of units that they like and enjoy playing with. Equally, there are some of us who are interested in the high end competitive tier of play. Equally, I don't turn up to my local games-workshop and play some 13 yr old with my competitive spam tournament army, if I play such a person at all I'd use units that I think are really cool and enjoy playing with but don't have a chance to play with in more competitive games. Equally, the vast majority of my games are pre-arranged games with persons who share my interest in playing a competitive game. I'll admit that it's a different attitude with a slightly chess feel to it with both players musing over their moves and trying to make absolute optimum moves.

Looking at definitions, I wouldn't see myself as a TFG simply because I try to be as nice personally as I can. I don't consider there to be such a thing as a cheesy army list, not because I don't accept that some armies are much better than others / but because I expect my opponent (in a competitive game) to play their absolute best.. I generally expect to see 15 long fangs/ 2 lash princes(when they existed) etc on the other side of the board and certainly wouldn't moan about losing to an 'overpowered' army. If I lost then it was because I was outplayed at which point I shake their hand, ask them what they did and study the game to see where I could have improved. What I am trying to say, is that my distinction is off the tabletop I'll be as nice as anyone, considerate/hygienic and all the other things that gamers should strive for. On the board, I'm as close to ruthless tactics wise as I can achieve.. However, I expect my opponent to do exactly the same. I only have a few opponents who play like this but they are definitely the games I enjoy the most. Alternatively, if I am playing someone else who I know is just playing casually then I will happily swop out my meticulously tweaked list for something ridiculously casual to enjoy playing a different type of the game.
5 As for WAAC, yes I play to win at all costs... the exception being I don't cheat or do anything unsportmanly. But as heavily emphasised, I play against other WAAC's.

I was looking at some of the threads and the theme of 'I don't want to play that TFG/WAAC/Rules Lawyer' comes up. Well I have two thoughts,
1. In my initial reading on the net, the majority of the complaints made about these people are out of game content, being terrible winners/losers etc.
2. If I go to a tournament, I am playing in such because I am looking for a competitive environment to play against the best that the game has to offer. I certainly don't expect to play against someone who will moan for the entire game that I maxed out my heavy support on one choice... If you go to a tournament (a serious one, I don't mean your local gaming campaign tourny) it is a competitive place. Expect, to play against people trying to win - if I bring in a 5th edition game a properly tweaked venom spam army to a pick up game, we have a problem. Equally, if you turn up to a tournament with a fluff based marine army we also have a problem. You won't have fun if I ruin your format, equally if you play something deliberately fluff based in my environment based around competitive play we also have a problem.

I' wanted to briefly touch on Throne of Skulls, which used to be the old Grand Tournament. I liked Throne of Skulls as a lot of people who regularly went were very capable players, some of which took deliberately casual armies for a challenge but there were a fair amount of people taking Crons/GK' tournament armies. I felt that because it had over 100players and the winners played winners etc it meant at the end after a few games the super competitive people were on boards 1-10 fighting it out whilst the people taking it a lot more casually were in the middle boards. I haven't been recently, but have heard that they have got rid of result matching and just provide 5 games against random pairings. To me this makes it no longer a tournament... *shrugs* but I wouldn't feel comfortable going knowing that I could 'ruin' 5 peoples day who have brought casual armies looking for a fun game or equally I could get what I wanted and play 5 people who are all competitive veterans looking for a bitter game!

I have written a wall of text! But atleast it's paragraphed!!!!! I'm very interested in what the community has to add to these musings, as someone at an event said 'He's a WAAC player.. but he's a very polite one'.

Until next time
The Reaaaaaaaal Cute Hydra

Wait; being WAAC is a bad thing?

 TheCaptain wrote:
Wait; being WAAC is a bad thing?

Yes. The only problem is that some elements of the community can't tell the difference between WAAC (win at ALL costs, including rules lawyering, cheating, etc) and competitive play.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Wait; being WAAC is a bad thing?

Yes. The only problem is that some elements of the community can't tell the difference between WAAC (win at ALL costs, including rules lawyering, cheating, etc) and competitive play.

This.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Wait; being WAAC is a bad thing?

Yes. The only problem is that some elements of the community can't tell the difference between WAAC (win at ALL costs, including rules lawyering, cheating, etc) and competitive play.

^

Hmm, maybe I should have called it 'confessions of a WAARC player... (Win at all reasonable costs)

I think what I was trying to say was, that a lot of people throw the TFG/WAAC/Rules lawyer labels about, but at the end of the day I don't go into their local gaming nights and ruin their fun, equally I expect that they don't come into mine and moan about my 3 of the same heavy support choice etc.

Whilst, I think that most understand that and there isn't really a major HAAC vs WAAC split. I think Peregrine has it spot on and there is a knee jerk reaction to seeing 8 night scythes on a board and automatically assuming the person is in some ways a horrible person.. I'm sure there are a lot of people using powerful armies which are well painted and the player showered that morning too!

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Wait; being WAAC is a bad thing?

Yes. The only problem is that some elements of the community can't tell the difference between WAAC (win at ALL costs, including rules lawyering, cheating, etc) and competitive play.

You can be a WAAC player and still follow the rules. IMO, if you had to cheat to win you really didn't win.

I am a WAAC player. I'll follow the rules to the letter. I may not appreciate what the letter of the rules is but I certaintly will not intentionally cheat.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can be a WAAC player and still follow the rules. IMO, if you had to cheat to win you really didn't win.

Pretty much all of this.

WAAC just seems like you're competitive to the highest degree. When you're cheating, I dunno, I don't think that's winning.

I consider myself WAAC, but always by the rules. Which I will correct you on all game if you're wrong.

Win At All Costs has always traditionally meant "at the expense of friendships, personal integrity, honesty, and the respect of your peers".

WAAC = Cheating, "bending" the rules, "forgetting" rules when they're to your disadvantage, over-measuring your movements, arguing LOS even when it's clear, manipulating people emotionally or through deceit for advantage. Stuff like lying about what's in your list or which unit is in which transport, offering to arm wrestle your opponent for first turn to intimidate him (this used to happen in Magic many years ago), verbally abusing your opponent to intimidate or upset them (ditto), etc.

Most of the real nasty WAAC stuff will get you thrown out of a serious tournament, although sometimes bullies can get away with that crap at small stores where they're a big fish in a small pod and/or the local organizer / store owner is a stereotypical nerd and doesn't have the social skills to confront the jerk and make clear that the behavior is unacceptable or throw him out.

WAAC should never be applied to honest and decent players. Using obscure rules to your advantage is not generally WAAC, any more than taking a piece en passant is WAAC in Chess. Or the Fool's Mate.

 Mannahnin wrote:
"forgetting" rules when they're to your disadvantage

I'd also add in the ever-useful "pointing out the opponent's rules mistakes only when it's to your advantage to do so". Say, silently watch the opponent forget some Armor Penetration bonus you know his unit has when he's trying to blow up your tank or maybe watch him get confused over how moving Fast vehicles can shoot and saying nothing when he shoots it as a normal vehicle. Then immediately pointing out if he mistakenly tries to, say, reroll a Charge with a jump unit that already moved by jump that turn.

A bit fuzzier is when you don't remind an opponent which turn it is or that he's about to flub a victory condition. In a friendly game a gentleman should surely point out that moving off that objective is a bit foolish on the last turn, or that you might wish to secure Linebreaker if that unit isn't moving anyways. In a serious tournament I wouldn't expect it , ofc.

Yeah, tactical errors I don't think there's an obligation to correct. Rules errors are another matter entirely. Like reminding your opponent about Hammer of Wrath hits, or Fear.

I heard someone say that "the best 40k player is the one that does not forget any rules".

I find that to be very wrong. The best 40k player is the best tactician, or the guy with the lucky dice. Simply forgetting rules when it's too your advantage seems cheap, like the kind of victory you get by using such tricks.

Yeh, you can know every single rule, but if you have no idea how to use them well you'll still suck.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can be a WAAC player and still follow the rules. IMO, if you had to cheat to win you really didn't win. .

Sure you do. If it's counted as a win .. say .. in a tournament, it's a win.

WAAC is winning at all cost. Hell, you might even be tabled and bribe the TO to noted it down "incorrectly" as a win. Win at all costs mean win at ALL (!) costs. It's not called "legitimate" win at all costs or something of that sort.

Deciding you're going to win at all costs is, like virtually anything else, something that has a time and a place. If there's a prearranged understanding between players that you're going to field the cheesiest army lists possible (I'm also of the opinion that there are no overpowered Codexes, simply Codexes that are easier to play and the occasional underpowered Codex (*cough*'Nids*coughcough*)) and play competitively, there's no problem with that. If you show up for a game with someone who's expecting a casual, friendly game where he/she/it/whatever doesn't have to be perfectly on-the-ball and playing a tournament-level list, that's where you run into problems. Just to be safe, I'd advise running more casual lists in pick-up games with people you don't know and fielding more competitive lists against the more competitive players you know ahead of time.

Anyone who fields a Warp Quake spam list against a 12 year old Daemon player and gloats about how they tabled the poor kid on deployment deserves to burn in a car fire!

WAAC's is being a complete donkeycave and generally bringing shame to the hobby and the gaming community.

Being hyper-competitive is fine. Just please check your super-efficient/spamy tournament lists at the door on the local friendly open gaming nights!
Or more likely, bring multiple lists and talk to your opponent about what kind of game they'd like to play... Some super casual guys like to challenge themselves afterall, or else just want to see if they could even last 3 turns against the tournament lists!

This is exactly how i like to play 40k. I've got necrons, guard and wolves, and what I like about every army is that all 3 can play on any level. I don't give half a crap about list building for advantage, I always like to okay a list that, at game's start, are perfectly even, then let tactics decide the winner.

Playing strictly by the rules, and using them to your advantage, plus making a strong list is never bad. What's bad is always taking the flavor of the month and never having your own army, as well as just being downright mean.

I love hearing from one guy who shows up at our FLGS since 6th with his air cron army and says he always played it, when the first time he didn't have finished fliers and they were scratch built with plates and crap.

On the first post I have to agree that a solid player who know his rules and know how to optimize his army is not a WAAC player, he's just a competitive player. Generally the competitive types tend to find each others and play against one another.

It all comes down to your attitude... I saw some bad players with poor attitude and vice versa. I also saw some good players who stuck with their army for a long time even if they were losing most of the time and then came a change of codex and a change of rules and suddenly something in their army began to work extremely well (necron would be the exemple here)

I totally agree that you should not "forget the rules" when they are at your disadvantage, or make too much rule lawyering, it kills the fun. The rules are the rules and we all should play by them, but sometimes interpreting the rules just don't cut it...

I however do not agree that you should point out the fact to your opponent that he's playing poorly and that he's doing something to his disadvantage or your advantage... I'm not playing for the others... if I face a bad general... well it's war after all . People learn from their mistakes anyway...

In fact it's not the competitive players that annoy me the most, it's the cheating one and of course the "flavor of the month" player type who jump from one overpewered codex to the next.