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.

WAAC is commonly attached to TFG because of the similarities in attitude.

Being a better player than your opponent doesn't make anyone a WAAC or TFG. Those tags appear when certain things are abused, like measuring and rules lawyering. Good players do none of this and it doesn't matter what their attitude is, if they play by the rules then so what?

TFG's are trolls, plain and simple. They're donkey-caves and generally fall into the WAAC category because of their attitude towards competitions.

WAAC is a broad term used too lightly to describe players that don't exhibit ANY of the required features; if someone outplays you using WHATEVER army, suck it up and shake their hand, say 'good game' and move on. They talk about how much you suck and make comments on your mother's promiscuity? NOW they're TFG. They argue that some arbitrary rule that wasn't update via FAQ's or in the newest set of rules, but BLATANTLY breaks a unit? NOW they're WAAC.

It's not that hard to make the distinction.

I think what people tend to forget is that WAAC and TFG aren't mutually exclusive; simply because someone is exhibiting signs of WAAC doesn't make them TFG and vice versa...although that's not generally the case.

Honestly, I think WAAC is just an attempt at people referring to someone being TFG without having the stones to say it, that and people can't seem to get over losing. If they take a fluffy list and get steamrolled because their opponent doesn't play that way, WAAC. If they've only played three games and someone beats them handily, WAAC. The problem exists on both sides of the argument; those that seem to think it's OK to be TFG simply because they can and those that can't stand losing so much that they have to degrade their opponent.

Either way, I just read the OP's history and LAWL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

If you exclusively buy one combo (nothing good comes to mind ATM, let's say FMC Circus), and run ONLY that list, and get mad when it gets nerfed, yeah, you're a donkey cave. Your army of Nids getting the nerf bat or BA assault armies getting the nerf bat is not TFG behavior. I'm referring EXCLUSIVELY to people who focus on one cheese list/rule and get mad when it gets nerfed. The point of a codex is to have multiple units to choose from.

So what if I buy a cheese factory? TFG isn't about what I field, it's about how I act when I'm fielding it.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

If you exclusively buy one combo (nothing good comes to mind ATM, let's say FMC Circus), and run ONLY that list, and get mad when it gets nerfed, yeah, you're a donkey cave. Your army of Nids getting the nerf bat or BA assault armies getting the nerf bat is not TFG behavior. I'm referring EXCLUSIVELY to people who focus on one cheese list/rule and get mad when it gets nerfed. The point of a codex is to have multiple units to choose from.

So what if I buy a cheese factory? TFG isn't about what I field, it's about how I act when I'm fielding it.

True, but I feel intentionally cheesing the rules falls into that category. 40k isn't balanced, but I feel that when they nerf those specific combos its not a bad thing and most of the people upset are people who relied solely on those lists. Again, this is different from say Nids who run one list competitively because thats all that is worthwhile.

See, while I get what you're saying (in my group I've got a demons AND eldar player /cry) but that's not the fault of the player, that's poor play-testing/balancing done by GW. Can someone really be TFG if they recognize different army patterns that offer the most optimized way to win?