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.

terry wrote:

 auticus wrote:
If the rule legit just says they have a 1+ save, nothing in there negates the rule of 1.

Thats just rules lawyers being rules lawyers hoping for a leg up for a few weeks.

and then the faq gets bloaded because people try to interperted the rules wrong

That's always an issue though, especially in 40k. The number of things wasted in an FAQ answering what should be obvious so some donkey-cave WAAC gak head doesn't try to claim an unfair advantage in a tournament is astounding, but not at all surprising. My favorite was the Leman Russ tank had a rule saying something like if it didn't move it could fire twice. People legit tried to argue that "moving 0 inches" wasn't the same as not moving and GW had to address it in an FAQ.

Very true. and very lolz.

 auticus wrote:
Very true. and very lolz.

In GW's defense though I totally get why they address those "silly" rules. Because, as I'm sure you're aware, all it takes is one rules-lawyer arguing it at a big event to cause problems. As stupid as it is might as well nip that behavior in the bud since they won't bring back comp/sportsmanship to punish those people for being jackasses.

having a 1+ is no different than having a 7+. If people tries to spin it is just because they want to see more.

Is cristally clear how it works.

And this is why I don't go to tournaments.

My free time away from home is rare and precious and I want to be sure I have a good time. I play to move my little plastic dolls across the table and roll some dice. I don't want to get in an argument with a mouth-breathing git who's intentionally cheesing the rules to try to win a game of make-believe.

Not sure about everyone elses experience with tournaments, but I've been to several for both 40k and AoS, and have only experienced one person being a rude dude. None of this supposed rules lawyering, any disputes got cleared up quickly by reading rules, or calling TO...

Anyways, if someone tries to argue that a 1+ save never fails until you have rend, you tell them to consider actually learning how to play the game and it's rules, then come back to a tournament setting.

This isn't the first instance of a 1+ being printed on a warscroll. CoS Black Dragon has a 1+ to wound on their bite attack.

 joewarhost wrote:
And this is why I don't go to tournaments.

My free time away from home is rare and precious and I want to be sure I have a good time. I play to move my little plastic dolls across the table and roll some dice. I don't want to get in an argument with a mouth-breathing git who's intentionally cheesing the rules to try to win a game of make-believe.

Bloody well put!

I stick to my gaming group and a few outside games these days. Might go to a tournament if only for the travelling...once Nurgle’s latest shenanigans runs its course.

 joewarhost wrote:
And this is why I don't go to tournaments.

My free time away from home is rare and precious and I want to be sure I have a good time. I play to move my little plastic dolls across the table and roll some dice. I don't want to get in an argument with a mouth-breathing git who's intentionally cheesing the rules to try to win a game of make-believe.

At the same time the number of people who are like that is tiny. It just proves to be more interesting to talk about than the overwhelming number of decent normal opponents people get.

Since I restarted playing warhammer 3 years ago I haven't had anything but great games in all the tournaments I have gone, from small FLGS tournaments (I go to 2-3 of those a month) to big tournaments with 40-120 people.


One should remember when discussing this kind of thing that people is more rude and more extreme on the internet than what they have the guts to do in person. Social pressurre is a thing. And i don't know, in general, the community is much healthier now than it was 15 years ago, or thats my impresion. I knew a ton of old gits and just rude people that don't play anymore, those moved to warmahordes, infinity, stopped playing, etc... In general, as being a nerd becomes more popular, is less socially acceptable to be socially inept. People has become more mature, older, etc... and many kinds of personality than 15-20 years ago were "endured", aren't anymore.

 Overread wrote:

 joewarhost wrote:
And this is why I don't go to tournaments.

My free time away from home is rare and precious and I want to be sure I have a good time. I play to move my little plastic dolls across the table and roll some dice. I don't want to get in an argument with a mouth-breathing git who's intentionally cheesing the rules to try to win a game of make-believe.

At the same time the number of people who are like that is tiny. It just proves to be more interesting to talk about than the overwhelming number of decent normal opponents people get.

Yep, after major tournaments all the spicy drama on here (mostly 40k) is about how someone/a group of people cheated and were ejected. It's just not that fun/interesting to talk about the nice guy you played against with the cool army.

I do major tournaments and have never seen anything even close to rules lawyering like on the internet. People in real life don't act like that at major events. At least all the ones i've been to.

40k only have drama literally b.c of the same 4 players.

I mean I think overall the main stigma against tournaments/tournament players comes from the min-maxing "meta" culture that's risen up the past decade or so. I'm having a similar talk about meta and min-maxing being detrimental in WoW Classic (the game as it was back in 2005) where the years of min-maxing, theorycrafting and "meta" has caused this huge divide where you are considered bad if you play something you want for fun because it's "not as good".

Same thing applies here and anywhere the meta/min-maxers come up (so every game basically) because the impressions are:

1) To them the only thing fun is winning, not in how you play (note this is not the same as WAAC)

2) They will ignore 90% of everything to focus on the 10% that is "good", and then state how everything other than that 10% is worthless garbage.

3) They discourage people from playing what they want or enjoy because they will immediately say how "X is bad play Y instead" and if you don't play Y you are a scrub/loser/etc.

This is doubly true in Warhammer where even the rules lend themself to this approach AND you are spending hundreds of dollars if not more buying things, so you can actually waste money buying something from that 90% instead of the 10%, but it takes away half of the game when most of the options you can take simply don't exist. People would gak on Warmahordes for having extremely limited options in unit choices (if you had any) but due to meta it's not like you have a myriad of options in Warhammer either once you look past what GW claims you have.

 Overread wrote:

 joewarhost wrote:
And this is why I don't go to tournaments.

My free time away from home is rare and precious and I want to be sure I have a good time. I play to move my little plastic dolls across the table and roll some dice. I don't want to get in an argument with a mouth-breathing git who's intentionally cheesing the rules to try to win a game of make-believe.

At the same time the number of people who are like that is tiny. It just proves to be more interesting to talk about than the overwhelming number of decent normal opponents people get.

They aren't common but in any major tournament I have ever been to (I used to travel a good chunk of the USA doing grand tournaments regularly for years), 100% of the time - one game in the six always had a variant of this person. So 1:6 is not common, but common enough where it can be exasperating when people try things like this.

Wayniac wrote:

1) To them the only thing fun is winning, not in how you play (note this is not the same as WAAC)

An important note when discussing WAAC, it's a very flexible term from what I've gathered. WAAC can mean something different to different people. To me, it means being a gakhead and doing things outside of the game rules to win a game. To me, it's not just when someone takes a hard tournament list, says Good luck and have fun, beats your face in with it and shakes your hand after doing it. Something just like that happened to me at a warmahordes tournament, I got demolished without killing a single model on the other guy's side, but the player didn't make it an unpleasant experience. Gave me tips and pointers after our very short game between the match rounds. It's rough when a newbie gets matched against a person on the Spanish Pro warmahordes team

 Thadin wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

1) To them the only thing fun is winning, not in how you play (note this is not the same as WAAC)

An important note when discussing WAAC, it's a very flexible term from what I've gathered. WAAC can mean something different to different people. To me, it means being a gakhead and doing things outside of the game rules to win a game. To me, it's not just when someone takes a hard tournament list, says Good luck and have fun, beats your face in with it and shakes your hand after doing it. Something just like that happened to me at a warmahordes tournament, I got demolished without killing a single model on the other guy's side, but the player didn't make it an unpleasant experience. Gave me tips and pointers after our very short game between the match rounds. It's rough when a newbie gets matched against a person on the Spanish Pro warmahordes team

Yeah pretty much, most of the time WAAC is used as an insult but it's original intent (back when it was "beardy") was someone not only unfun to play against and a powergamer to the extreme but a rules-lawyer to boot; someone who would do anything short of outright cheating to win. Like a cheater is a cheater, and can also be WAAC but WAAC more or less implies playing by the rules, but in an unsportsmanlike manner by trying to argue everything or claim RAW/RAI as it fits their agenda, on top of using the most broken combos.

Basically what was called a munchkin in D&D as opposed to a powergamer. The powergamer just built optimal characters (the equivalent to competitive listbuilding) while the munchkin not only did that but also tried to argue the rules constantly to get any advantage they could, mostly in gray areas of the rules where things were unclear. The old "the rules don't say I can't..." or "But according to page 42 paragraph 3 X happens when I Y so according to page 532 that means..." sort of thing.

Somewhere along the lines back in the late 2000s, the term "powergaming" went from a way to describe someone that enjoyed min/max playing to a derogatory that was akin to dropping the "f" bomb in a forum as well.

But thats not fully true either, having been on top tables going against the top players a couple times, most are actually genuinely nice, and yes they want to win, but they are doing so via their list and good tactics not any type of waac personality.

Heck last year at Adepticon, in Doubles me and my partner did fight the top players and lost ofc, it was clear by end of turn 2 (this was when FeC was at its top, they did Fec+DoK and we did Old BAD slaanesh and BoC lol) they completely destroyed us but was very nice and friendly the entire time, they were their with a large group of players. But for how bad out lists were they honestly were impressed with our tactics, our lists worked great together, we just couldn't handle always fight first super Terrorgyst.

Honestly the "bad attitude" players where the ones going and not trying to win anything, the causal players. I'd rather go full points round 1 and fight games i know i will lose than lose round 1 and fight on lower tables (I've been on both ends a few times).

Now it wasn't all of them, some just drink, push models around, and are happy to be there, but i'm saying i've only seen bad spirit of the game from players that don't try to change their playstyle, lists, or learn others armies to even try to win.

EDIT: To add, i'm not talking about pickup games, a pickup game should be as equal as possible, but for events, that should never be the chase, you are trying to be ranked.

Likely when people started using it as a derogatory term. Hell, the whole thing about using WAAC/Powergamer to try and insult people who enjoyed playing at tournaments and minmaxing probably gave rise to the fun CAAC term as a rebuttal. Casual at all Costs. Haven't seen it get uses lately though, there was a time it was prevalent in 40k's 8e release early on.

 auticus wrote:
Somewhere along the lines back in the late 2000s, the term "powergaming" went from a way to describe someone that enjoyed min/max playing to a derogatory that was akin to dropping the "f" bomb in a forum as well.

Yeah. When most people talk about "powergaming" they really mean your munchkin/rules-lawyer, not just a min-maxer. I remember back in the day of the 3.5 character optimization forum on the WOTC forums there was a distinct line between the min-maxers, most of whom did things for theorycrafting purposes (mixing XYZ splatbooks to make a character who could do 500 damage in a turn or whatnot) and the actual munchkins who not only built that but would try to use it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thadin wrote:
Likely when people started using it as a derogatory term. Hell, the whole thing about using WAAC/Powergamer to try and insult people who enjoyed playing at tournaments and minmaxing probably gave rise to the fun CAAC term as a rebuttal. Casual at all Costs. Haven't seen it get uses lately though, there was a time it was prevalent in 40k's 8e release early on.

Peregrine (whatever happened to them?) coined CAAC as a rebuttal to WAAC I'm pretty sure but used it to mean "anyone who doesn't build a good list or thinks you should play for fun" most of the time given their attitude boiled down to "You are insulting me by not bringing a power list". Never really saw it used outside of Dakka and then only by people who seem to be 110% in competitive tournament mode all the time.

Flexible terms sure are annoying, lol. The way I saw it being used was a rebuttal against people just adamantly demanding people not play the strong lists they built and generally being salty while losing. Hell, I've played against people who were like that, a gakhead who throught that early 40k 8e All Primaris marines (When the only models were the starter set units and their Dreadnought) was a WAAC list.

I've noticed, it usually comes down to the winning player, the player with the stronger list, to be expected to tone down their army. It's assuming that they have a huge collection for the army and can just always do that. The player with the strong army may have just accidentally bought a powerful list, and that's all they have. It happened to me, when Skaven just got their new book and I bought in to the army and hadn't built a collection yet. This can lead to frustrations I'd imagine, when they're always expected to change their list. But, two sides of same coin, I see plenty of comments where the weaker list is told to get better. All about perspective.

Indeed. It comes down to making the game's point values reflect the true power as close as possible.

If we can get to a place where 2000 points is actually 2000 points, (it will never be perfect, not advocating for that) then these disparities in lists lessen, and the at-each-others-throats of waac vs caac garbage can also be lessened.

It is certainly valid to have bought your models and then find out its busted as all hell but unreasonable to have to then go out and buy MORE models just so you can gimp your list, just as its valid that you bought models and come to find out your entire faction is gimp and you have to rebuy a new faction (be it from lack of your own education or an faq /new version rolling through nerfing you) and it be unreasonable to "git gud" or "build a better list" based off of your model selection. If 2000 pts was around 2000 pts, your models would be fine either way.

terry wrote:

 auticus wrote:
If the rule legit just says they have a 1+ save, nothing in there negates the rule of 1.

Thats just rules lawyers being rules lawyers hoping for a leg up for a few weeks.

and then the faq gets bloaded because people try to interperted the rules wrong

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Very true. and very lolz.

In GW's defense though I totally get why they address those "silly" rules. Because, as I'm sure you're aware, all it takes is one rules-lawyer arguing it at a big event to cause problems. As stupid as it is might as well nip that behavior in the bud since they won't bring back comp/sportsmanship to punish those people for being jackasses.

I think judges are entirely too forgiving of this sort of behavior. The level of bs and outright cheating players are allowed to get away with is ridiculous.

Absolutely agree. You should get a strike if you try to argue something blatantly obvious that anyone with sense could understand because it's clear you're trying to rules-lawyer.
Accused of cheating? A judge stays by your next game to monitor. Found out cheating? Disqualified from the event and suspended for X amount of time. Caught multiple times? Lifetime ban.

Instead we have cheating and people try to defend the guy with this "He just had a lapse in judgement, he's a good person and a great player" horsegak.

I'd like to just take a moment to say that the last few pages of this thread have been amazing. There have been disagreements, but everyone has been very civil about it. We've actually been having debates rather than arguments. Can we do this more often?

 EnTyme wrote:
I'd like to just take a moment to say that the last few pages of this thread have been amazing. There have been disagreements, but everyone has been very civil about it. We've actually been having debates rather than arguments. Can we do this more often?

Git gud LMAO

I agree btw this has been enjoyable

Last I'd heard about a cheating event at a tournament was late last year, was a player who was known for cheating in the past, but had recently been allowed back to tournaments, or something along those lines. Our protagonist player knew about this player, and requested that there be a judge posted at the table for the match, and that was obliged. Problems ensued, and the cheater was removed from tournament... But this was the third round of a 5 round tournament IIRC, the player had probably ruined two other peoples games before getting ejected.

TO's, from what I've seen, do take people being gakheads or cheaters very seriously... When they know, or are made aware, that it's happening. And there's many many reasons why a player may not notice the cheating going on (moving an extra inch via the magical hovering tape-measure for one) or the Extra One-in-Ten where you are rolling a gakload of dice and put a few more in than you should, or for some reason feeling too anxious to report cheating or general gakkery that they do actually notice.

Another aspect is that its very hard, especially in a single game environment such as a tournament where a player might only play against a specific person once, to tell cheating from genuine mistakes.

It's why record keeping and match recording are so important for trying to identify people who continually make mistakes of the same self-beneficial nature. Ergo those who are clearly displaying a pattern of behaviour that might suggest an intention of cheating; as opposed to someone who just made the odd honest mistake. Sometimes you can only spot it if you see multiple matches and the same patterns repeating over and over again

I get t's hard but I remember a couple of years go now a few cheating at big tournaments for 40k and the FLG crew was all like oh let's not have a witch hunt, he's a good guy and a great 40k player, basically downplaying it. And that happened quite a few times.

Those people grossly downplay it because:

* they have a financial stake in the big tournament scene

* they know that a couple of low lifes staining a tournament with their cheating will trigger an equally overblown back lash about how tournaments are the den of evil and corruption

new marauders when? the models are about 20 years old and got that bubble muscle aesthetic. they're the best thing going in the new std book. are they just trying to empty their back stock before releasing new mortal models?