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.

Not people who try to essentially cheat, but I mean the people who seem like they'll quit the game all together every time they lose.
In all my hobbies, I've made the observation that the people of the community who focus on winning above all else are often the ones that nobody at all is in a rush to play.

Well yeah.

They have poor attitudes in general, which would naturally make them less desirable to game with, let alone share the same space with.

They are fun. You have to have a certain level of skill to spot one right then and there, and when you do (or at least when I do) their loss to silly tactics or goofy units is my command.

Their rage is my ultimate goal.

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
They are fun. You have to have a certain level of skill to spot one right then and there, and when you do (or at least when I do) their loss to silly tactics or goofy units is my command.

Their rage is my ultimate goal.

I've definitely noticed that a lot of WAACs think they're great tactical geniuses because they have one strategy that somebody else posted online, haha.

It depends. Do you mean players everyone likes to label WAAC because we have the audacity to choose units that give us the best chance to win an inherently competitive game? Or do you mean WAAC players who move every model 7", conveniently forget/misquote certain rules, etc? I have no problem with people taking power lists if they play by the rules and are friendly. If they cheat or are generally an ass during the game, then I have a problem.

 Toofast wrote:
It depends. Do you mean players everyone likes to label WAAC because we have the audacity to choose units that give us the best chance to win an inherently competitive game? Or do you mean WAAC players who move every model 7", conveniently forget/misquote certain rules, etc? I have no problem with people taking power lists if they play by the rules and are friendly. If they cheat or are generally an ass during the game, then I have a problem.

While the majority of this site likes to lump WAAC players and competitive players together I believe in this rare case OP is actually referring to the unpleasant kind.

 Toofast wrote:
It depends. Do you mean players everyone likes to label WAAC because we have the audacity to choose units that give us the best chance to win an inherently competitive game? Or do you mean WAAC players who move every model 7", conveniently forget/misquote certain rules, etc? I have no problem with people taking power lists if they play by the rules and are friendly. If they cheat or are generally an ass during the game, then I have a problem.

The trouble most people have with power lists isn't that people take them. Its the surprise when you are at a FLGS doing a PUGs and not expecting to play a tournament list or a power list, when most (and I do mean most) posts come up about WAAC its because players with power lists who want to do nothing than win sneak these lists into what seems to be a friendly game.

Examples are limitless in my area of players posting up on local FB groups for games at the GW shop or FLGS and being super friendly about points and army then brining the internet/tournament/deathstar lists against new players, friendly dudes trying new armies etc. Power players have a place, they just need to fly the flags of a power player all the time, not when convenient.

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
It depends. Do you mean players everyone likes to label WAAC because we have the audacity to choose units that give us the best chance to win an inherently competitive game? Or do you mean WAAC players who move every model 7", conveniently forget/misquote certain rules, etc? I have no problem with people taking power lists if they play by the rules and are friendly. If they cheat or are generally an ass during the game, then I have a problem.

The trouble most people have with power lists isn't that people take them. Its the surprise when you are at a FLGS doing a PUGs and not expecting to play a tournament list or a power list, when most (and I do mean most) posts come up about WAAC its because players with power lists who want to do nothing than win sneak these lists into what seems to be a friendly game.

Examples are limitless in my area of players posting up on local FB groups for games at the GW shop or FLGS and being super friendly about points and army then brining the internet/tournament/deathstar lists against new players, friendly dudes trying new armies etc. Power players have a place, they just need to fly the flags of a power player all the time, not when convenient.

The second part of Kavik's post is spot on. I'm very competitive in a lot of things that I do, but I think thats a far cry from WAAC.
To me a WAAC is somebody who not only loves to bring powerlists to friendly events just to say "Look at me, I won!", but also forgets certain things during your turn, but remembers that WD issue 42 there was some loose reference to a rule that happens to benefit them, though it's not in the rulebook as such.

I think the phrase "Tryhard" is a better one than WAAC.

My brother is a WAAC. Not like bring a power list, I mean if he doesn't think he's going to win by the third turn he just quits. It got to the point where I stopped playing with him because we would set up for an hour, play 2 rounds, he would rage quit and i'd be stuck with a bad taste in my mouth because he couldn't enjoy a game

 HillyKarma wrote:
Not people who try to essentially cheat, but I mean the people who seem like they'll quit the game all together every time they lose.
In all my hobbies, I've made the observation that the people of the community who focus on winning above all else are often the ones that nobody at all is in a rush to play.

Just so you know, the first part of your description is NOT the definition of WAAC players. A WAAC players is one who uses every nuance of the rules and army lists to their advantage until their victory counts as-much-or-more on their list-building and rules knowledge than it does on their actual gameplay. Or sometimes simply known as a very-competitive player.

What you describe is simply bad looser who is also a WAAC player.

I've got no time for poor losers or bad sports. As for WAAC/Highly-Competitive players there's nothing wrong with them it's just not my style. Their approach is such that they're basically playing a different game than me. Luckily there's enough opponents around for everyone to find folks who match their play style.

 luky7dayz wrote:
My brother is a WAAC. Not like bring a power list, I mean if he doesn't think he's going to win by the third turn he just quits. It got to the point where I stopped playing with him because we would set up for an hour, play 2 rounds, he would rage quit and i'd be stuck with a bad taste in my mouth because he couldn't enjoy a game

I actually have someone exactly like that. First off, they do bring hardcore tournament lists even on "casual day" at the store when everyone tries out new/silly lists. But if they're losing at the start of turn 3 they quit. Oh, I managed to kill their warlord? Maybe one of their better units? Maybe I claimed an objective? "Well I lost" and starts packing up models. If you try to convince them to keep playing, they'll completely stop trying. Not move their units, or just put their entire army out of LoS, and wait for you to move towards them even though you hold the objective.

Thankfully I don't see them often. Yes, I do hate players that do this, you can't judge a game at turn 2 (unless they somehow wiped out your entire army I suppose).

 kingbobbito wrote:

 luky7dayz wrote:
My brother is a WAAC. Not like bring a power list, I mean if he doesn't think he's going to win by the third turn he just quits. It got to the point where I stopped playing with him because we would set up for an hour, play 2 rounds, he would rage quit and i'd be stuck with a bad taste in my mouth because he couldn't enjoy a game

I actually have someone exactly like that. First off, they do bring hardcore tournament lists even on "casual day" at the store when everyone tries out new/silly lists. But if they're losing at the start of turn 3 they quit. Oh, I managed to kill their warlord? Maybe one of their better units? Maybe I claimed an objective? "Well I lost" and starts packing up models. If you try to convince them to keep playing, they'll completely stop trying. Not move their units, or just put their entire army out of LoS, and wait for you to move towards them even though you hold the objective.

Thankfully I don't see them often. Yes, I do hate players that do this, you can't judge a game at turn 2 (unless they somehow wiped out your entire army I suppose).

Some of the most fun games I've had are when I'm basically screwed and just through caution to the wind, I'm not gonna win anyway so I may as well try some crazy stuff, I once charged an Ork Warboss with my stealth suits (in like 5th I think now) and managed to kill it with my last one. I don't understand why people would just stop a game because they're not going to win. Is winning really that important? The way I see it, unless there's an emergency or my opponent is unpleasant or whatever, I'll see a game through to the end. Who am I to stop my opponents enjoyment just because I migght not win...

I really only have power lists since I'm in the process of selling off the stuff that's just flat out bad. The only things I'm keeping other than the typical melta pod spam, stormfang and Centurions is a squad of teterminators because they're cool and a land raider. I don't own the models to play a silly/fun/handicapped list. Luckily my meta is mostly tournament lists so I don't get a lot of complaints about it. The only guy that has complained plays eldar and owns several revenant and phantom titans so he's a pot calling the kettle black.

I've been accused of being a WAAC player, at least by the OP's definitions. Before conceding though, I will ask an opponent if they see a way I could win. I'll be honest, I just genuinely think I'm going to lose most of the time. If my opponent legitimately thinks I might pull it out, I will stick it out for another couple of turns, (and to be fair, most of the time this has happened they've been correct) but if it gets too ridiculous I will throw in the towel.

 HillyKarma wrote:

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
They are fun. You have to have a certain level of skill to spot one right then and there, and when you do (or at least when I do) their loss to silly tactics or goofy units is my command.

Their rage is my ultimate goal.

I've definitely noticed that a lot of WAACs think they're great tactical geniuses because they have one strategy that somebody else posted online, haha.

This - is exactly why WAAC players loved ( Net-list-Hammer ) 5th edition. You could copy a "winning" list online and never face anything unexpected, nothing random, nothing that might force you to think or react - your win could be entirely plotted out Off the table.

Now well, unless you play Eldar hah, it's a different ballgame.

Eldar still requires skill to win. Yes, they're the most powerful army. However, you can't just hand a serpent spam list to someone and expect them to table anything they come up against. When do you shoot your shields as opposed to leaving them up, when do you jink and sacrifice your firepower for survivability, when do you go for the objectives instead of sitting back and blasting away, when do you drop off your troops? I've seen people bring newly built serpent spam lists for a league and get roflstomped by my drop pod army because they wanted to play shooty pew pew with their serpent shields all day and I blew them off the table while they were still full of troops that don't survive blown up vehicles very well. I'm not saying eldar are balanced or not top tier, I'm saying they still take some skill and finesse.

I agree Toofast, I was really just making the point that List-Hammer is not THE dominant force in the new edition - you have to actually play to win (not just build lists).

My two cents: I play an army that is admittedly, not very good (Raven Guard Jumppack) and I get myself kicked around. For example, at a hobby focused tourney, I got myself tabled turn 3 by an Adamantium lance plus elysian flyer list, mostly unpainted. Those kind of things make me unhappy, when people miss the point of these tourneys, or the fact that this is a game.

I'm a very fluffy player, I run lists like Kroot Mercs, a very heavily 'fan-fluff' driven DA army (Angels of Absolution) and a World Eaters force based on a similar kind of idea as ADB's Night Lords (I.E. HH was only 100ish years or so ago to them due to warp related nonsense.).

I do however create some balanced or more competitive lists when entering tournaments or playing against less narrative/fluffy players etc, (I'm not WAAC but I'd like to at least not get thrashed every day.)

My experience of playing WAAC players is limited but from the ones I have played, they seem to be happier and everyone else seems to be happier when these kinds of people play each other. Thats the way they both enjoy the game and thats fair enough, it means everyone else can play casual, fluffy or friendly games without the growing concern of being smashed by the end of turn 2 (outside of bad luck etc.)

Everyone enjoys the game their own way, but if I know someone is WAAC I tend to avoid them, but if they couldn't get a game with anyone else etc I wouldn't leave them hanging either. I can handle losing, but I also like having fun and ensuring others get the fun/enjoyment they are looking for too.

I think that WAAC is being used to broadly. In my opionion:

WAAC: People who care more about winning than having fun. They bring only the most powerful units/armies/rules, and will do anything within the boundaries of the rules to win. They may employ dirty tactics, or gray area rules to give them an upper hand, while not outright cheating. Unless they win, they don't have fun. Even if they do win, they probably didn't have fun anyway, and their opponent certainly didn't.
Other terms: Try hards, L33Tists, TFG
Other examples: MMO raid leaders who harp endlessly about your character not being perfectly optimized. TCG players who will build exact decks because they statistically have the best chance to win, and shun anyone who does it differently.

Poor sports: People who don't enjoy the game unless they are winning. They may bend or break the rules, "forget" things, or chastise their opponent, doing things outside the rules to give them an advantage. They quit/rage/complain when things don't go their way.
Other terms: Cheaters, donkey caves
Other examples: TCG players who stack or rig their deck to get an advantage. People who sneak money from the bank in monopoly. People who quit a game part way through because they aren't winning by a noticeable margin or face rolling.

Competitive players: People who play to win, and enjoy bringing competitive list. They will usually also bring the most powerful units/armies/rules. You will have about the same chance on average to win against this play as a WAAC player, but will enjoy the experience more. This is because what they lack in underhanded tactics, they make up with true competitive effort. They will usually have fun, win or lose, at the end of a good competitive game. The main difference is that non WAAC competitive players care about fun, not winning. Being competitive is just their fun, which itself is not wrong.
Other terms:
Other examples: People who build unique decks in TCGs made to counter the current power meta. People who train or put extra practice into their sport/hobby to make themselves better.

These terms are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. You can be any number of these things, or none at all (ie fluff player, casual ect).
I think in most cases, people will agree that WAAC players and poor sports are the black mark on many games/hobbies/sports.
In most cases, people don't mind competitive players. It can be frustrating to play one while you are a casual/fluff player, or playing a list that is.

 Toofast wrote:
It depends. Do you mean players everyone likes to label WAAC because we have the audacity to choose units that give us the best chance to win an inherently competitive game? Or do you mean WAAC players who move every model 7", conveniently forget/misquote certain rules, etc? I have no problem with people taking power lists if they play by the rules and are friendly. If they cheat or are generally an ass during the game, then I have a problem.

WAAC really means "that guy I don't like for one reason or another", which is sometimes deserved and sometimes not. It's a crapshoot.

 HillyKarma wrote:

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
They are fun. You have to have a certain level of skill to spot one right then and there, and when you do (or at least when I do) their loss to silly tactics or goofy units is my command.

Their rage is my ultimate goal.

I've definitely noticed that a lot of WAACs think they're great tactical geniuses because they have one strategy that somebody else posted online, haha.

They definitely didnt get tactics from dakka.... No actual tactics are ever posted here.

 Eilif wrote:

As for WAAC/Highly-Competitive players there's nothing wrong with them it's just not my style. Their approach is such that they're basically playing a different game than me. Luckily there's enough opponents around for everyone to find folks who match their play style.

This. I find playing them wearying, because to be on the same level as them, you have to squeeze the rules for every advantage just as hard as they do, and I just don't want to play the game that way. In the other thread I mentioned the guy with his 3rd edition-sized SOB Exorcists on a hill hiding behind moden-sized rhinos, which was just one of the things he did, and there was another player who did 5th edition Blood Angel parking lot - IIRC, turn a rhino sideways and then squeeze two razorbacks behind it, making them generally untargetable from the front. He also had the painstakingly differentiated nob bikers to take full advantage of wound allocation to keep from having to remove a model.

Everything they did was perfectly allowable in the rules, but it's just not the way I want to play the game.

Alot of folks would have a better time gaming and wouldn't over-use terms like TFG (which have a place) if the two players would simply have a one minute conversation about what kind of game they want to play before they start playing. That, combined with the willingness to either compromise (WAAC today, Fluff tomorrow…) or being honest enough to say "I don't think we'd enjoy playing each other, let's not", would go along way to curb the frustration different styles of players seem to have with each other.

I took this to the extreme and started a club of gamers who are deliberately not WAAC players. It's worked out great for the last 4 years because we all know what the vibe of our games are going to be and there's no frustrations coming from differing playstyle expectations.

 pwntallica wrote:
I think that WAAC is being used to broadly. In my opionion:

WAAC: People who care more about winning than having fun. They bring only the most powerful units/armies/rules, and will do anything within the boundaries of the rules to win. They may employ dirty tactics, or gray area rules to give them an upper hand, while not outright cheating. Unless they win, they don't have fun. Even if they do win, they probably didn't have fun anyway, and their opponent certainly didn't.
Other terms: Try hards, L33Tists, TFG
.

I think this is a bridge too far. I agree with your definitions of poor sports, and I don't enjoy gaming with WAAC players at all, but I wouldn't call WAAC or highly-competitive players necessarily TFGs or assume they are not having fun. They just enjoy the game very differently than some other folks. A WAAC player is only a TFG if he intentionally brings a WAAC list or playstyle to a player who has specifically requested a fluffy/casual/etc game. Unles such an agreement (implied or explicit) is violated, a hyper competitive player is not being a TFG. He's simply enjoying a very different playstyle.

Why do people think that those who care about winning aren't happy and don't have fun when they win. If that was true it would have no sense.

Oh boy how long has it been since the last TFG / WAAC thread.



Honestly now

a WAAC is some one that will go to any length (including straight out cheating) to win.

a TFG is just Dat fething guy. the one that grabs models with cheeto hands. the one man peanut gallery that makes a point to point out every mistake you made even though they dont play your army. the guy that you play then in the middle of your turn goes out for a 10min smoke break while you are in your shooting phase. its just the kinda unpleasent guy that you dont want to be around. a WAAC can be a TFG but its not synonymous always.

a competitive player is some one that will take every measure to win within the rules of a game. the kinda person that will study and understand all the rules. make very good min maxed lists understands and is prepared for any rules lawyering and what not. a competitive player can be a TFG but cant be a waac as they will stay within the rules.

and this is a duck.