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.

At the beginning of the year I asked several forums why we like to win casual games. The stated goal of the post was to get a range of opinions on the subject, but part of it also had to do with asking myself that same question and not having an answer. You guys gave me a lot to think about, so thank you again for that.

I'm excited to let you guys know about a series of articles I'll be doing about the subject over on my blog. It's not going to be objective in the least, so don't go in to it thinking otherwise. It'll be more about my journey as both a "super casual" and "jerky WAAC" player, and where my yo-yoing has put me. I think there will be something there for everyone to relate to, so I hope you guys will check it out and let me know what you think!

Part 1: What Is Casual (to me)?
Part 2: What is WAAC (to me)?
Part 3: Finding Balance.

Look into FAACers too, they are the real sad stories of wargaming.

What does FAAC stand for?

Fun at all costs.

That sounds awful.

and here i thought he mean fluffy at all costs...

If I'm correctly assuming your definition of Fun At All Costs, I discussed it in this first article. Too bad I didn't think to add the obvious acronym, as there's a lot I could have done with things being "FAACed up."

Im kinda WaaC. If my opponent starts to loose, Im not going to feel sorry for him. This is a game, if you want to have a cooperative game, play RPG's or Settlers of Catan. Yeah, I go to have fun, But I also go to win, which means someone who isnt prepared to loose shouldnt expect a fun game from me.
Just ask conan, What is best in life.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im kinda WaaC. If my opponent starts to loose, Im not going to feel sorry for him. This is a game, if you want to have a cooperative game, play RPG's or Settlers of Catan. Yeah, I go to have fun, But I also go to win, which means someone who isnt prepared to loose shouldnt expect a fun game from me.
Just ask conan, What is best in life.

Then you may enjoy part 2 a bit more when it releases

Gotta love how everyone prefers being divisive instead of respecting other's playstyles and preferences.

Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

My guess, He doesnt play the game much, just cares about laughs, doesnt know the rules much. And he chides players for being to focused on winning.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im kinda WaaC. If my opponent starts to loose, Im not going to feel sorry for him. This is a game, if you want to have a cooperative game, play RPG's or Settlers of Catan. Yeah, I go to have fun, But I also go to win, which means someone who isnt prepared to loose shouldnt expect a fun game from me.
Just ask conan, What is best in life.

You are apparently playing Settlers of Catan with a very different rules set than I am...

I've seen it used for both Fluffy and Fun at all costs. In extremes the former will cry over anything they don't regard as fluffy and the latter will pack up or phone in when the game turns into a blow out...or they will keep smiling and playing on.

I've seen some self admitted WAACs, but never someone was either version of FAAC. A lot of people are into the fluff and most want to win, but I've never seen it go to the extreme of making the game miserable for the other player. I don't even know what the FAAC equivalent of rules lawyering or cheating would be...or if there even is an equivalent. I think it's mainly an internet concept fleshed out buy competitive players to lambast 'casuals'.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My guess, He doesnt play the game much, just cares about laughs, doesnt know the rules much. And he chides players for being to focused on winning.

Why is ignorance a requirement for FAAC?

The problem is that it's hard to have two very different playstyles at the same table. In a civil discussion, I don't imagine the two extremes are genuinely upset at one another. Rather, they're upset at what the other represents, and especially what that opposite does (or has done) to their gaming sessions.

I spent a lot of my "casual games" playing fairly competitive people. The result was a bad game for both sides. They were too aggressive and rules-reliant for me, and I was too lackadaisical for them. In retrospect, neither style was particularly wrong, but we were indeed wrong to expect the other person to play our version of the game.

In part 3 or 4 I'll talk about my thoughts on the perceived dichotomy, and possibly how the two can coexist at the table. I hope you'll stick around to give some input on it!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

1. Relentlessly quoting Monty Python for the entire duration of any game.
2. Telling everyone about that hilarious thing your character did at your last Vampire the Masquerade session.
3. Wearing a shirt that tells everyone about your quirky sense of humour in case your mouth is full, or you just had serious dental work done and can't tell them yourself.
4. Playing a game may occur at some point, more likely if their army is themed around a meme or nostalgic reference.

 plastictrees wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

1. Relentlessly quoting Monty Python for the entire duration of any game.
2. Telling everyone about that hilarious thing your character did at your last Vampire the Masquerade session.
3. Wearing a shirt that tells everyone about your quirky sense of humour in case your mouth is full, or you just had serious dental work done and can't tell them yourself.
4. Playing a game may occur at some point, more likely if their army is themed around a meme or nostalgic reference.

I'd say that's a pretty bitter view of them Although it does remind me of a guy I played with during a short-lived D&D campaign, complete with a character themed around some current joke.

"Because frak you that's why!" would be great for a chaotic crazy character.

Playing an army that is fluffy as hell and hasn't a hope of winning against an optimised list....and not caring because this is what you enjoy. Tends to drive the competitive crowd insane because they just can't wrap their head around playing a game that isn't optimised to win.

FAAC

I've played FAAC before. Still do sometimes, when the mood strikes me.

Normally i play a mid-range competitive list of one stripe or another, but sometimes i just have to run things like the Grot Army (180 grots on foot, Sag Meks, Kanz and Big Gunz) despite the fact they have a whelk's chance in a supernova of actually winning the game.

Winning isn't the only goal, after all Having a blast is more important to me, with winning being the icing on the cake.

Plus sometimes those grots will fool you, and rock a TH/SS termie squad in CC or assassinate Calgar with a torrent of fire

Back in the day i was a lot more WAAC.

As the song puts it

'i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now...'

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

FAAC is Fluff or Fun at all costs.

Its that guy that gets really butt hurt when you're army doesnt match his idea of the fluff and will usually say things like "Calgar wouldnt show up for a skirmish!" or gets very offended when you take anything close to competitive, rolls his eyes alot when he loses and choses units based on the fact that he likes them and refuses to remove them even if they are a clear hinderence. Another case is the guy that makes up his own fluff and thinks you should know all about his "brony" (or whatever else) themed army and the individual names of each of his squads and their actions. They also tend to make up rules for "realism" and get pissed when you bring up abstract rules example: Getting a 5+ cover save for standing in open on the base of area terrian. Eldrad in none Ulthwe armies tends to really burn their ass, but they will get upset when you dont except their personal Tyranid-Eldar count as space wolf army.

Ive had more TFG moments with FAAC players then WAAC players, WAAC players you just need to know the rules as well and stand your ground and not be a afraid to call a judge or simply tell the guy he's a dink, FAAC players are akin to religious nut jobs that explode over the tiniest offense to their snow flake sensibilities.

EDIT: These are also the guys that create missions or campaigns with complete disregard for the rules and they end up being his personal little fantasies and a complete nightmare for everyone else, often resulting in utter failure.

Where is the line between "I've made up a scenario, who wants to give it a try?" and "I'm a FAAC player!" then?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where is the line between "I've made up a scenario, who wants to give it a try?" and "I'm a FAAC player!" then?

Criticism

A FAAC player will not have it, its either his way or no way. Any cristicism is considered a personal offense.

I'll happily play something that someone has made up and tell them why and how it does or does not work. Some guys you just cant convince them their "baby" is broken.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where is the line between "I've made up a scenario, who wants to give it a try?" and "I'm a FAAC player!" then?

The FAAC player is not playing to have fun, they're playing to have Fun. If you aren't playing to have the exact same Fun that they want you are What Is Wrong With The Game Today, and you need to immediately give up everything about the game that you enjoy and only have fun in the official approved ways. And winning is never approved. If you ever care more about winning than the FAAC player you are a WAAC TFG and you should just move pieces around the table having Fun until both players have had enough Fun and pack up the game for the day.

In short, the FAAC player is a cultist of Fun, the 5th chaos god.

I just play the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you aren't playing to have the exact same Fun that they want you are What Is Wrong With The Game Today

There's so much truth to this. Having been there, I remember that competitive players of any game were "what was wrong with the game." It's narrowminded in hindsight, but at the time you love "your" game so much that you don't want it to change.

An odd comment I have to add. I was very big into MTG tourneys, played and won cash a few times. I quit. There is a big issue in pushing competitive play and it is people. You reach a point were you keep striving to be better and players at the FLGS aren't good enough. Either you know the matchup and win, or you let the matchup beat you. Then you get bored and drop the hobby or go forward into a bigger scene. it may seem drastic but yes the competitive win at all costs means those not good enough will not win. this means friends may also drop the hobby you've become so competitive in. I really pushed a few away by trying to win every time. Now I'm happy as can be grabbing close games in 40K. While I do play my best the important part is seeing my friends and having a great time socially.

I'm sad to say I am stuck with a group of gamers who have a similar mindset to WAAC (well, there are a few WAACs but most of them are ok guys) players but there is a difference between playing to win and WAAC in my mind.

The difference between WAAC and playing to win is that WAAC player post on facebook that the answer to people spamming the best thing in their codex is not to play someone better than you. Ie that the problem is you're not good enough, rather than the person bringing the latest cookie cutter tourney list to a non tourney game.

I like playing to win, I do it all the time. But I make sure I have fun doing it, I make sure my opponent has fun doing it. I am not there to beat him, I am there to have some fun pushing models across a board and rolling dice. When I go to a tournament I don't make a fluffy list, I make one I think will win, fantasy isn't as broken as 40k but I will try and bring the stronger units in my book and ignore the weaker ones, I'll call up someone on rules if I think they are wrong, but I am not going to sit there and silently stare at the board or get grumpy when I lose.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
At the beginning of the year I asked several forums why we like to win casual games. The stated goal of the post was to get a range of opinions on the subject, but part of it also had to do with asking myself that same question and not having an answer. You guys gave me a lot to think about, so thank you again for that.

I'm excited to let you guys know about a series of articles I'll be doing about the subject over on my blog. It's not going to be objective in the least, so don't go in to it thinking otherwise. It'll be more about my journey as both a "super casual" and "jerky WAAC" player, and where my yo-yoing has put me. I think there will be something there for everyone to relate to, so I hope you guys will check it out and let me know what you think!

Part 1: What Is Casual (to me)?

TL: DR another person who is incapable of separating the concept of "playing to win" from "building a roflstomper cheesemonger list designed to exploit every rules loophole you can find and acting like a pedantic twit at every stage of the game".

If you really can't see the difference between playing to win, and playing to win at all costs, that's a bit of a shame, but here's an idea; rather than writing a self-aggrandising blog series which managed to reach "condescending" by the third paragraph of the first post, how about you just accept that people prefer a different style of play and stick to playing people who share your view?

 Amaya wrote:
I've seen it used for both Fluffy and Fun at all costs. In extremes the former will cry over anything they don't regard as fluffy and the latter will pack up or phone in when the game turns into a blow out...or they will keep smiling and playing on.

I've seen some self admitted WAACs, but never someone was either version of FAAC. A lot of people are into the fluff and most want to win, but I've never seen it go to the extreme of making the game miserable for the other player. I don't even know what the FAAC equivalent of rules lawyering or cheating would be...or if there even is an equivalent. I think it's mainly an internet concept fleshed out buy competitive players to lambast 'casuals'.

I'd also guess they're the people you see in arguments about balanced games, who like to imply that competitive players don't actually enjoy the game, and they're superior to competitive players because "at least I have fun!" or "who cares about the system being broken and the unit choices being horribly unbalanced, I had FUN with it.". If they lose, they'll try and claim a moral victory because your list crossed some subjective "too good" line,

Anecdote time; I played in a Warmachine tournament a couple of weeks ago. All the games were very "competitive" in that fluff wasn't really a factor, there were no takebacks, if you didn't get your turn done in the time limit it stopped right there, and the letter of the rules was all that mattered. And that had nothing to to do with how much I enjoyed playing against certain people; that was all down to the personal attitude of the opponent.

If the ruleset was tight, well written and well balanced then competitive, WAAC tournament style play would be awesome.

but with the lose, counter intuitive, unbalanced, "forge the narrative" outdated ruleset they give us, WAAC gaming detracts from or even completely ruins the game. With these rules, it's best just to play for fun i think.

the fact that they make things overpowered on purpose to sell models means to me that their crap game really shouldnt be taken too seriously. It will be funny when 7th makes fliers a pile of crap and GW comes up with a new thing you need to buy.