Defining WAAC

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.

**Ironwill13791**

Eilif wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

This may be the best post I've seen showing the gradients of WAAC, and defining them. Well Done!
I've got no time for WAAC players though I will tolerate competitive players if I know ahead of time what kind of game they want.

As others have mentioned, I would add "List tailoring" in the WAAC section, especially when it happens at the game table just before the game.

A buddy of mine showed up at store for a pick up game a few months back. It was one of his first 40k games (he told the opponent this) and he was eager to get his newly painted Dark Angels on the table. Other guy watches as he unpacks his case, then brings out a pen and proceeds to modfiy his list specifically to counter it. Pulls the necessary models from his large collection and tables my buddy. I had to explain to my buddy later that when that starts to happen it's best to either demand that the opponent play with the list he had originally or not play the game at all against such a d-bag.

Personally I believe (and I try to play against those who believe) that the best way to play is to honestly discuss with your opponent what kind of game you are looking for so that both sides have a good time. There's no shame in turning down a game with someone whose preferred game experience is completely different from yours. It's a big hobby with room for everyone.

I like that definition too. I agree with you. Play with those who want a similar experience as you and let others (like WAACs) play against each other.

**TheCadreofFi'rios**

Eilif wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

This may be the best post I've seen showing the gradients of WAAC, and defining them. Well Done!
I've got no time for WAAC players though I will tolerate competitive players if I know ahead of time what kind of game they want.

As others have mentioned, I would add "List tailoring" in the WAAC section, especially when it happens at the game table just before the game.

A buddy of mine showed up at store for a pick up game a few months back. It was one of his first 40k games (he told the opponent this) and he was eager to get his newly painted Dark Angels on the table. Other guy watches as he unpacks his case, then brings out a pen and proceeds to modfiy his list specifically to counter it. Pulls the necessary models from his large collection and tables my buddy. I had to explain to my buddy later that when that starts to happen it's best to either demand that the opponent play with the list he had originally or not play the game at all against such a d-bag.

Personally I believe (and I try to play against those who believe) that the best way to play is to honestly discuss with your opponent what kind of game you are looking for so that both sides have a good time. There's no shame in turning down a game with someone whose preferred game experience is completely different from yours. It's a big hobby with room for everyone.

List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

**kirsanth**

WAAC is less applicable when the entire game is based upon the idea that the game is simply won or lost.

People aiming to win have a goal that is often enough against the goal of the game itself.
Asking people to play that game is unfair.

**DeffDred**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
DeffDred wrote:
akira5665 wrote:
"Just bring a real model. Or models." I assure you Sir, it is real.

How much can a Koala Bear?

Could you perhaps post a link to where on GW or FW I can buy one?

Not a very good argument coming from someone with an Ork inspired name, given that Ork players had to scratchbuild or convert many of their models for years before GW finally released all the kits...

And which years are you referring to?

IIRC Orks have always had every model in their list (after 2nd) except a battlewagon which FW produced not long after.

Chaos needed its Defiler... Tyranids needed a few bugs a while back. But I'm really drawing a blank on missing Ork models in 3rd and 4th...

Yup just checked... the only thing missing at the time was a battlewagon.

And screen names are a horrible way to judge people. Do you think Akira had mind over matter?

**Maelstrom808**

TheCadreofFi'rios wrote:
Eilif wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Some stuff

Some more stuff (thanks btw!)

List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

I have several standard lists that I keep packed with my stuff for various points levels and a couple of variant builds. I when I go to the FLGS or to my buddy's place to play, I usually have a specific list with whatever ideas I'm trying out at that time that I want to play and that's what I go to first. The only time I change from that list is if I feel that it will be an utterly unfair list for my opponent (meaning they have little chance of overcoming it), they really need/want to play a different points level, or they are just really against playing that kind of list (I play flyer heavy Necrons most of the time, and I understand a lot of people hate playing against them).

What I won't do is change my list after seeing what my opponent is bringing to give me an advantage. That is list tailoring imo. If I'm going to be a serious underdog, I'm going to play it out. Part of it is it's just being a good sport. Part of it is if I'm playing a tournament, I don't have the opportunity to change my list to give me better odds. Playing the game out to see what I should change, why exactly I need to change it, to what degree I really need to make a change, and what I can do differently during the game to adapt makes me a better player in the long run.

**Shandara**

I'm more surprised by this thread at the existence of Competitive Apocalypse Tournaments. It seems to defeat the point of Apocalypse (and is eminently unsuited for the game format anyway, with the myriad of ways to shank your opponent).

**Portugal Jones**

Yeah, aside from the potential game lengths, that just seems like a recipe for discord and conflict, and not the good 'happening on the table kind.' How many rounds would you want something like that to go through in a day?

**Leo_the_Rat**

I will say that it seems strange that an ardent FW supporter, in terms of using it in tournies, is mad at another person due to the fact that FW under costed a model in a game with potentially unlimited points available to each side. How is it the players fault that the rules evaluate something at X cost? All the player can do is pay the points and move on.
Again how is it the player's fault that he uses a "well known" tactic that is viewed as OP, but enitirely legal? Does this make everyone who uses the netlist of the month also WAAC?
Arguing OP in an apocalypse tourney is pointless and off topic it doesn't matter how many points are on the table its what the player does both with his models and to his opponent that would label him WAAC.

**Azreal13**

Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. This just keeps going, and people keep missing the point.

Building a titan and using it in the appropriate context (100k point Apocalypse games) is not WAAC.

Bringing a 4000 point titan (that should really cost 10,000+ points) to a 6000 point game and taking replacements to return it if it somehow dies is one of those well-known abusively overpowered things in Apocalypse. Yes, it is part of the rules, but if you do it you forfeit the right to complain when your opponents bring a counter for it so they don't just get wiped off the table.

Bringing a dedicated anti-titan list when your opponent is planning to bring a titan list that you have no chance against otherwise is no worse than bringing the titan in the first place. If the anti-titan list is WAAC then the titan is certainly WAAC.

Can you really not draw a line between bringing a cheesy list because your opponent is bringing a cheesy list and tailoring a list specifically to screw your opponent?

**BuFFo**

Shandara wrote:
I'm more surprised by this thread at the existence of Competitive Apocalypse Tournaments. It seems to defeat the point of Apocalypse (and is eminently unsuited for the game format anyway, with the myriad of ways to shank your opponent).

I said the same thing about competitive Warhammer 40k about 12 years ago

**TheCadreofFi'rios**

Maelstrom808 wrote:
TheCadreofFi'rios wrote:
Eilif wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Some stuff

Some more stuff (thanks btw!)

List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

I have several standard lists that I keep packed with my stuff for various points levels and a couple of variant builds. I when I go to the FLGS or to my buddy's place to play, I usually have a specific list with whatever ideas I'm trying out at that time that I want to play and that's what I go to first. The only time I change from that list is if I feel that it will be an utterly unfair list for my opponent (meaning they have little chance of overcoming it), they really need/want to play a different points level, or they are just really against playing that kind of list (I play flyer heavy Necrons most of the time, and I understand a lot of people hate playing against them).

What I won't do is change my list after seeing what my opponent is bringing to give me an advantage. That is list tailoring imo. If I'm going to be a serious underdog, I'm going to play it out. Part of it is it's just being a good sport. Part of it is if I'm playing a tournament, I don't have the opportunity to change my list to give me better odds. Playing the game out to see what I should change, why exactly I need to change it, to what degree I really need to make a change, and what I can do differently during the game to adapt makes me a better player in the long run.

Yes I agree with that. I don't list tailor after I see my opponents full army. However I believe in scouting a player's army in order to give them a good game. Namely this guy at a local store that I want to play that has a hell turkey and a bunch of demonforges. Yes I know what is in some of his list but not exactly everything.

**Doctadeth**

Competitive gamer - brings counters to units in case units show up, knows the rules, and uses them in a fair context. Also can offer you advice.

WAAC - Uses pre-edition rules/differing rules to the book. Changes weapons in the heat of the game according to target. Doesn't mark which models are what. Borderline cheats until either he gets his own way, or you tire of trying to correct him.

**Talizvar**

Peregrine wrote:
Competitive = tries hard to win within the rules. Optimized lists with all the best units, ignoring fluff if it improves their chances of winning, etc. The game is about competition, a test of skill where the best player wins.

WAAC = win at ALL costs. Cheating, rules lawyering, abusing every RAW issue they can find that favors their army, etc. The game is all about winning, no matter what it takes.

The competitive player uses Shadowsun in a Farsight bomb army because a 2+ cover save on the Farsight bomb is great. The WAAC player does the same thing and then tells you that your models can't charge the Farsight bomb because they're wearing helmets and you have to draw LOS from their eyes.

THIS!

I look at it this way: If you do not follow the rules it is no longer a game, it is fiction at the expense of your "opponent" who still thinks they are playing a game.
One is trying to beat the "intellect" of their opponent while the other is trying to win by "coercion or deceit" outside of game rules.

**Lansirill**

Some of WAAC is contextual. In a tournament, sure, I guess if you want to bring one of the powerful combos that's up to you. It may not be particularly fun to play against for people that are there just to cruise the middle/bottom tables, roll some dice, and socialize, but it's hardly behavior that I think is reasonable to frown upon. Bringing that super combo to a random pick-up game... that might be pushing it a bit. Bringing it against someone that you know it will crush, and your opponent isn't looking for the challenge? Yeah... it may or may not be WAAC, but it is DBag.

Same list, same person, same attitude, but change the context around a little bit and I think you can have someone shift from being competitive to being WAAC.

**Eilif**

TheCadreofFi'rios wrote:
List tailoring to what degree? I think bringing two lists to play actually gives you a way to make the game more interesting. Otherwise you are wasting your precious time putting models on the board frankly. I say: come prepared with a few lists (you can only use one).

I say once you arrive at the club, if you are playing someone who has only brought one list, ANY list tailoring is WAAC behavior. They brought one list and as soon as you change your list to adjust to their army, you are giving yourself an advantage that they don't have, and venturing into WAAC territory. If you have a couple lists and you grab one when when you hear what army they've brought, it's a grey area, and no one can stop you, just realize you've already given yourself an advantage they don't have.

If you change lists or tailor a list once you see what minis they've brought, you are unequivocally WAAC'ing and even bordering on cheating.

List Tailoring is of course acceptable when two players who have agreed on a very competitive game ahead of time tailor their armies to beat each other.

Shandara wrote:I'm more surprised by this thread at the existence of Competitive Apocalypse Tournaments. It seems to defeat the point of Apocalypse (and is eminently unsuited for the game format anyway, with the myriad of ways to shank your opponent).

I've seen this at a few places applied to standard level games. It seems to mean that you can bring whatever you want and might be a way to build a tournament scene where players are scarce or new and don't have completely legal armies.

Or it could just be a bad idea...

**cammy**

I normally bring a few lists with me of various points, what i do though is after agreeing the points total we want to play i will get out all of my lists and let me opponent choose which they want to play against.

Once i have played a person a number of times i will use my standard list which does not change depending on opponenet.

**akira5665**

Peregroin - And screen names are a horrible way to judge people. Do you think Akira had mind over matter?

Yep, no matter what, I don't mind

**Eilif**

cammy wrote:
I normally bring a few lists with me of various points, what i do though is after agreeing the points total we want to play i will get out all of my lists and let me opponent choose which they want to play against.

Once i have played a person a number of times i will use my standard list which does not change depending on opponenet.

This is a really great way to play. Obviously you are someone who wants the opponent to have as good a time as yourself.

I usually only bring one list per force, but I always try to have an extra copy on hand to give to my opponent.

**Bookwrack**

Wait wait wait, are there actually people in this thread giving someone gak for going through the effort to make a bad ass Imperator Titan, and actually want to use it?

**CommanderAlexander**

Bookwrack wrote:
Wait wait wait, are there actually people in this thread giving someone gak for going through the effort to make a bad ass Imperator Titan, and actually want to use it?

That's what I was wondering, having just wandered in. Are they angry that it's not an official model? because I would love it for someone to point me to where GW sells Imperator Titans (though the price would probably physically hurt, could you imagine?)

But yeah, that's a sweet titan.

**vhwolf**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I will say that it seems strange that an ardent FW supporter, in terms of using it in tournies, is mad at another person due to the fact that FW under costed a model in a game with potentially unlimited points available to each side. How is it the players fault that the rules evaluate something at X cost? All the player can do is pay the points and move on.
Again how is it the player's fault that he uses a "well known" tactic that is viewed as OP, but enitirely legal? Does this make everyone who uses the netlist of the month also WAAC?
Arguing OP in an apocalypse tourney is pointless and off topic it doesn't matter how many points are on the table its what the player does both with his models and to his opponent that would label him WAAC.

Forgeworld had nothing to do with the Imperator Titan Rules. That was a GW web released data sheet.

**Leo_the_Rat**

You're right. I forgot that Apoc is an actual GW release even though FW does make most of its models for the Apoc game.
The point being that peregrine is/was complaining that the titan is severly underpointed and implied that therefore it should be banned from play. Peregrine is vociferous that all models made by GW/FW should be able to be played RAW or else your just not playing by the rules. For him to complain that using an official GW model when used with another GW rule is broken and therefore should be disallowed is, at best, laughable.

**frozenwastes**

azreal13 wrote:
Competitive player's response if you ask if you can take back a move, or do something you should have done earlier in the turn:
"Sure mate, no problem"
Then he crushes you.

WAAC player's response to the same question "No, sorry"
Then he crushes you.

This has nothing at all to do with what you said right after it:

Basically it all boils down to attitude, a "competitive" player can roflstomp you, you'll shake his hand, and start thinking what you could have done better, different or changes you could make to your list.

If a WAAC player does the same, you'll feel vaguely violated and start thinking how you can avoid playing him again in the future.

A person can have a great attitude and play competitively and all that good stuff and still not want to play a game where people are reversing time to reset mistakes. Allowing take backs isn't likely something a WAAC player would do, but not allowing take backs doesn't make someone a WAAC player.

The attitude thing was on the right track, but the take backs example doesn't illustrate your point.

**Easy E**

Eilif wrote:
Personally I believe (and I try to play against those who believe) that the best way to play is to honestly discuss with your opponent what kind of game you are looking for so that both sides have a good time. There's no shame in turning down a game with someone whose preferred game experience is completely different from yours. It's a big hobby with room for everyone.

This X over 9,000!

You would be surprised how controversial it can be to decline a game with someone.

**Ironwill13791**

Bookwrack wrote:
Wait wait wait, are there actually people in this thread giving someone gak for going through the effort to make a bad ass Imperator Titan, and actually want to use it?

Yeah, that titan was pretty awesome. I would want to field in my apocalypse games if I made it.

**sonofhan**

Tannhauser42 wrote:

DeffDred wrote:

akira5665 wrote:
"Just bring a real model. Or models." I assure you Sir, it is real.

How much can a Koala Bear?

Could you perhaps post a link to where on GW or FW I can buy one?

Not a very good argument coming from someone with an Ork inspired name, given that Ork players had to scratchbuild or convert many of their models for years before GW finally released all the kits...

And which years are you referring to?

IIRC Orks have always had every model in their list (after 2nd) except a battlewagon which FW produced not long after.

Chaos needed its Defiler... Tyranids needed a few bugs a while back. But I'm really drawing a blank on missing Ork models in 3rd and 4th...

Yup just checked... the only thing missing at the time was a battlewagon.

And screen names are a horrible way to judge people. Do you think Akira had mind over matter?

actually...going through the third ed book in order the missing units are/were:

painboss(non character)
cyborks
komandos
Flashgitz
lootas
and the battle wagon

all but the last one had to be made from the boys box which didn't even have a power-klaw in it

also, until recently all of the vehicles were from gorkamorka.

-peace,
G

**Peregrine**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The point being that peregrine is/was complaining that the titan is severly underpointed and implied that therefore it should be banned from play.

No I'm not. Why is it so hard to read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote?

Is the titan part of the game? Yes.

Is the titan, especially with the replacements asset, incredibly overpowered in a 6000 point game? Yes.

Conclusion: you can bring it, but you forfeit your right to complain if your opponent brings an anti-titan list instead of just letting themselves get tabled so you can have "fun". My problem is not that they brought the titan, it's that they brought it while simultaneously calling their opponents WAAC for bringing a counter list. You can't have it both ways, if bringing the counter list is WAAC by your standards then bringing the titan in the first place is certainly WAAC.

**Leo_the_Rat**

And again you misinterpreted his complaint. It wasn't that they brought a list that could counter a titan. It was that his opponents brought a list to specifically counter his titan. In other words they wouldn't have brought the list they did except for the fact that they knew the titan was coming.

**akira5665**

Indeed Leo_the_Rat - was the main point. That, and the request to throw the battle for place rigging.

**quickfuze**

akira5665 wrote:

1. They TAILORED their list to beat ME. I built mine with no knowledge of other Armies.

I was going to just sit back and leave this thread alone until I read THIS.....It's as if you imply that it took some epic thought process or tactical savvy to bring that thing to an APOC game. Its not like you drafted some really well thought out, all comers, I have an answer for everything list. You took a severely undercosted model and gave it broken asset. The fact that the TO even allowed this garbage amazes me. Even before the revamp of the rules addressed this issue, most sensible players were already restricting that asset to non-superheavy models.

Good job on the model though....at least it doesnt look like a bunch of paper towel rolls and some shoe boxes