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.

When i build my armys i tend to combine the winning and the fluff aspect of the game. For instance whilst im building my Warmachines army i have chosen to theme it around witches. so my 2 casters are Warwitch Deneghra and the Witch Coven and i am including Warwitch Sirens. the main units i am having in there are Thralls. the only pirates (Satyrxis Raiders) and their captian are in there as part of the crew of the ship that is being used to raid the coasts of western Immoren and to perform pinpoint and surgical strikes. I do believe in playing for pure fluff and coming up with scenarios but i dont believe in doing stupid things like blowing up at the first sign of critiscism. This hobby is a competative one and whilst that dosnt mean you cant play to have fun it does mean that you should be prepared to face your opponent and give as good as you get. I regulaly have close games where its a matter of a single dice roll between victory and defeat for both of us. this is good as it means that both players have had to fight hard and that even the loser can come off feeling that they have got something out of the game. To me a victory where i have walked over the opponent and pancacked them on turn 2 is a hollow victory. I wont deny that it isnt nice once in a while but it swiftly gets boreing. It should be noted that non of what i have said here is an excuse for WAAC players. If you are in the game purely to hammer your opponent into the ground and dont give a crap about the game or the fluff and the story then you really need to wake up and smell the roses. Sure massacring your foe and tossing their mangled corpse from the cliff is what the game is about but this is only one aspect and if you are purley designing lists that are meant to smash your foe and be unstoppable and you dont give a crap for their feelings or how much they enjoyed the game then you may want to try being WAAC,ed yourself.

 Elemental wrote:

 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.

And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds awful.

Yeah, I agree, is FAAC an oxymoron? How on earth can people be negative about someone who plays a game for... Heaven forbid.. The fun of it?

Judging by what's written here all chess players are WAACs. They don't give a darn about the background of the game and all they do is push their pieces around the board trying to smash their opponents. In fact most of them are not even there to "have fun" but participate with winning as the only thing on their minds.

I'm sorry but trying to win is part of the game to me. If you're not going to at least put up a good fight then don't show up. You're wasting my time and destroying my "fun".

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah, I agree, is FAAC an oxymoron? How on earth can people be negative about someone who plays a game for... Heaven forbid.. The fun of it?

Because FAAC doesn't just mean having fun playing a game, it means defining "fun" as narrowly as possible according to what you personally like and getting outraged (complete with fake moral high ground) any time anyone dares to have fun in any different way. For example, FAAC players will often complain about "WAAC" players and accuse them of ruining everything because they have fun playing more competitively than the FAAC player. It's not enough for the FAAC player to simply decline to play in competitive games and spend their time doing something they enjoy more, they have to treat it as a moral issue and attempt to shun anyone who disagrees with their opinion.

Wow! I have to say I agree with much of what you are saying! I personally tend to play with a "themed" list in 40k. Meaning I take units that typically aren't the absolute greatest and fit within the army. However I also try to make it well rounded and give my opponent a hard time when we are playing. One of my friends once told me, "Ben, your fluffy lists are so stale that when a power gamer bites into them he chips a tooth!" I take this as a compliment because I feel that a themed list (in a non tournament setting) is the way to go. You can tone yourself down to have a fun game against a new opponent or kick it into overdrive to take on a competitive gamer! Just my 2 cents of course but I will be following this from now on!

On the FAAC view point. I can see this being equally irritating. I have a friend who loves 40k, but he likes to just play, "You drop down your army and I drop down mine, then we just kill." For him this is fun, and it really can be. BUT! It takes a lot away from the game if it is two guys just trying to blast each other without anyway of EVER telling who won. Just like i feel kinda iffy about multiplayer free for alls. Just my thoughts again!

I like my themed, fluffy lists.

But I like winning too.

I just hate when the codex cannot support the theme very well. Like Khorne players trying to actually use CSM to make their theme, because assault has been gimped, berserkers are horrible, and there's no way to assault within a good timeframe to actually be useful.

I like close games. Win or lose, they are more exciting than when either I table my opponent easily or they table me.

I always play fluffly lists too. I refuse to mix Gods in my Chaos armies. Something about it just seems wrong. That said it still has to be as competitive as I can make it within this restriction.

But I don't mind that every Ork player down the FLGs has Necron allies purely for the fliers. Wouldn't catch me with an army like that though.

If someone is truly WAAC, that'd mean they would rather win even if it meant they didn't enjoy the victory. Seems sad. :(

As one of those FAAC guys (more like semi-FAAC I guess), I have to say that what I see wrong with WAAC gamers isn't that they want to play to win, which is something even FAAC gamers want to do. The annoying thing is that there is this mentality in the game now that you should only cut and paste the latest net list.

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

That feels like more of a condemnation of the game than the gamer.

Then again, I feel like the only people who complain about "WAAC" in my experience tend to be guys who want to whine about someone who actually analyzes the game and makes a list accordingly, as opposed to just throwing random crap out there like you're "supposed" to do. It seems like the height of delusion to treat a 2-player game like an RPG, but that's just me.

Panzeh wrote:

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

That feels like more of a condemnation of the game than the gamer.

Then again, I feel like the only people who complain about "WAAC" in my experience tend to be guys who want to whine about someone who actually analyzes the game and makes a list accordingly, as opposed to just throwing random crap out there like you're "supposed" to do. It seems like the height of delusion to treat a 2-player game like an RPG, but that's just me.

The problem is that 90% of the people running these list aren't doing any analysis at all. Sure, when a codex is new there are guys out there innovating and coming up with good lists. Everyone else see's what they have done and just take it wholesale and use it. Zero creativity, zero skill.

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

The problem is that 90% of the people running these list aren't doing any analysis at all. Sure, when a codex is new there are guys out there innovating and coming up with good lists. Everyone else see's what they have done and just take it wholesale and use it. Zero creativity, zero skill.

Isn't that just an indication that the game is degenerate and largely 'solved', then?

Just to point out, net lists are terrible in competitive play, they only work against average generals and noobs.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Just to point out, net lists are terrible in competitive play, they only work against average generals and noobs.

The new (now old) demon cheese, SW and BA Razor spam, Paladin spam at release and CronAir all disagree with you.

Nah, those are pretty crap.

Cronair is weak because most of its fire power is off the table most of the game, and you have to delpoy 50% of your force. two or three nightscythes arent bad but any more is just dumb.

Daemons I assume you mean screamer and flamer spam, Ive played it a few times, wasnt that big of a deal.

Paladins were pathetic, I ran the list because it was easy to paint and there are tons of counters to them, the most important was tank shock (before 6th) now without a 4+ FNP or cover and no wound allocation they die like any other terminator.

I wouldnt call the SW and BA (or even guard) spam lists net lists, that was just good use of points and using the rules. Net lists are gimmick lists, one trick ponies, like the dark angel triple crusader army is just bad, but it will slaughter people that arent very good.

Deldar Beastspam disagrees.

I would say that the pigeon holes could be narrower for both.

WAAC - Find out where their opponents live, kidnaps their families or loved ones. Forces opponent to throw the game.
Or just plain ups and murders their opponent.

FAAC - Ditto, except they will do very disturbing things to their captives or kill their opponent in the most oddball fashion imaginable.

Nothing wrong with bringing fluffy armies to the table the same as there is nothing wrong in someone bringing a fully optomized list.

Truly WAAC and FAAC types do have one thing in common - they are both douches.

Bingo

Its not the army, its the player.

Are you sure its just some people being utter douches ?

Is there no responcibility at the door of a company that pretends its marketing pamphlets are a game system?

And telling WAACs the game is supposed to be for them because there are points values , so they can work out the most cost effective units within minutes of getting a new codex.
(And sell them new models every relese,due to horrendous ballance issues.)

AND telling the FAACs the game is 'cinematic' and the 'rules are not all that important'.So just making stuff up and forcing other players to accept it is fine.
Because thats what the GW studio staff do, dont they?


I honestly do not see this level of dichotemy in other game systems.They have some players that have more background focused lists, and some players that are more focused on in game effectiveness.But when the two meet that still get to play the same game with similar chances to win-narrate the battle.
But most other games are focused on game play rather than short term sales...

The kind of players I can't stand are the LAAC players. They are the worst (literally!).

Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

 Amaya wrote:
Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

If you met some of the people I have, you might think so.

edit: LAAC is also a parody of WAAC, since the concept of WAAC is so out there. Most of the people labeled WAAC aren't. Seems only fair to throw the label the other way.

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah, I agree, is FAAC an oxymoron? How on earth can people be negative about someone who plays a game for... Heaven forbid.. The fun of it?

The difference here mattyrm is that when I made that comment I didn't have a bunch of people clarifying what FAAC meant. You have that, yet you seem to have missed it.

 pretre wrote:
The kind of players I can't stand are the LAAC players. They are the worst (literally!).

For a second there I thought you were talking about this.

 pretre wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

If you met some of the people I have, you might think so.

edit: LAAC is also a parody of WAAC, since the concept of WAAC is so out there. Most of the people labeled WAAC aren't. Seems only fair to throw the label the other way.

It would be kind of fun to take a powerbuild against someone's extremely poorly built army and try to lose. See if the difference in list quality was enough to win.

 Amaya wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

If you met some of the people I have, you might think so.

edit: LAAC is also a parody of WAAC, since the concept of WAAC is so out there. Most of the people labeled WAAC aren't. Seems only fair to throw the label the other way.

It would be kind of fun to take a powerbuild against someone's extremely poorly built army and try to lose. See if the difference in list quality was enough to win.

Or to build a cookie cutter internet tourney list, then get a game in against a complete noob where you play using each other's armies.

 Surtur wrote:
And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

It's a complex question.

I think the competitive environment worked because Warmachine is relatively good on the front of balance and clear rules. There were no rules debates that couldn't be solved by checking the book or grabbing a wandering organiser. That relative balance let people bring the best lists they could manage and be competitive, because there was no guilt or resentment based on someone playing a perceived "power list" or having to struggle with an army that hasn't been updated in five years. Army composition and efficient tactics didn't reflect on the perception of the players, only their actual behaviour did. Which is really as it should be.

I've met a few Fun At All Cost players. For example, every Ork/Orc player who insist on shouting WAAAAGH when they invoke such an effect in-game,

Their fun, of course, is not the fun of everyone else. In fact, it leads to the rest of the LGS cringing as yet another nail is hammered into the miniature gamer=socially awkward yet vocal idiot coffin by the FAAC player.

 Elemental wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

It's a complex question.

I think the competitive environment worked because Warmachine is relatively good on the front of balance and clear rules. There were no rules debates that couldn't be solved by checking the book or grabbing a wandering organiser. That relative balance let people bring the best lists they could manage and be competitive, because there was no guilt or resentment based on someone playing a perceived "power list" or having to struggle with an army that hasn't been updated in five years. Army composition and efficient tactics didn't reflect on the perception of the players, only their actual behaviour did. Which is really as it should be.

We always play on time and use steamroller 2013 in my gaming group. We use Chess Clocks. There is no other way to play Warmachine/hordes if you ask us. When I play ordinary Chess I play on time also, most of the time. I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends. Its Deathclock time, or timed turns, Every Week... I dont play 40k/WHFB because the "fluff" comes in 2nd place for me, and you can't play a Broken system period its Zero fun. And a pointless waste of time. The King on the chess board is my equal to my caster in warmchine. Its a piece on the board that functions a certain way. I could replace the model with any holding piece, the function is what is interesting for me personaly. I think we have this playstyle because many of us are Chess players from the start. You want as little LUCK in a game as possible if you ask me, Pure skill is what counts. And you play games to win, that is what makes it fun. If you lose you learn something and that is also fun in it's own way. But it has to be competitive or the "FUN" stops for me, I would go back to playing 100% chess again, if my gaming group started playing for "Fluff" and putting the rules on the backburner.

The rules for "Though" in warmachine/hordes is one that I think needs to go for the next edition, it adds in an element of unpredictablility that I do not like.. The less dices you role the better a game is if you ask me..

Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
I've met a few Fun At All Cost players. For example, every Ork/Orc player who insist on shouting WAAAAGH when they invoke such an effect in-game,

Their fun, of course, is not the fun of everyone else. In fact, it leads to the rest of the LGS cringing as yet another nail is hammered into the miniature gamer=socially awkward yet vocal idiot coffin by the FAAC player.

LOLZ..

 Nucflash wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

It's a complex question.

I think the competitive environment worked because Warmachine is relatively good on the front of balance and clear rules. There were no rules debates that couldn't be solved by checking the book or grabbing a wandering organiser. That relative balance let people bring the best lists they could manage and be competitive, because there was no guilt or resentment based on someone playing a perceived "power list" or having to struggle with an army that hasn't been updated in five years. Army composition and efficient tactics didn't reflect on the perception of the players, only their actual behaviour did. Which is really as it should be.

We always play on time and use steamroller 2013 in my gaming group. We use Chess Clocks. There is no other way to play Warmachine/hordes if you ask us. When I play ordinary Chess I play on time also, most of the time. I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends. Its Deathclock time, or timed turns, Every Week... I dont play 40k/WHFB because the "fluff" comes in 2nd place for me, and you can't play a Broken system period its Zero fun. And a pointless waste of time. The King on the chess board is my equal to my caster in warmchine. Its a piece on the board that functions a certain way. I could replace the model with any holding piece, the function is what is interesting for me personaly. I think we have this playstyle because many of us are Chess players from the start. You want as little LUCK in a game as possible if you ask me, Pure skill is what counts. And you play games to win, that is what makes it fun. If you lose you learn something and that is also fun in it's own way. But it has to be competitive or the "FUN" stops for me, I would go back to playing 100% chess again, if my gaming group started playing for "Fluff" and putting the rules on the backburner.

The rules for "Though" in warmachine/hordes is one that I think needs to go for the next edition, it adds in an element of unpredictablility that I do not like.. The less dices you role the better a game is if you ask me..

Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

In what city/town do you live?

Panzeh wrote:

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

That feels like more of a condemnation of the game than the gamer.

Then again, I feel like the only people who complain about "WAAC" in my experience tend to be guys who want to whine about someone who actually analyzes the game and makes a list accordingly, as opposed to just throwing random crap out there like you're "supposed" to do. It seems like the height of delusion to treat a 2-player game like an RPG, but that's just me.

This is pretty much it right here. Hit the nail on the head.

The problem is 40k is inherently unbalanced, and the majority of people who play the game, rather than take the company and/or game designers to task for their own mistakes, instead try to make excuses for them and shift blame to the player. "The game is just fine, you're just not playing it right." Instead of complaining to GW for putting out bogus rules and refusing to fix them after the fact, or even acknowledge that there are imbalances to begin with, we're trying to peer pressure people into showing "restraint" and just not using certain units or even entire armies, because the game has apparently degenerated so much that when this stuff hits the table it's literally not worth playing anymore, it's a foregone conclusion.

If a game depends on the player to act "responsibly" to make the game enjoyable, and fails to reward the player in any way for doing so, then the game is flawed. In this case, playing responsibly would be running a "fluffy"/random list, and your reward would be still being able to stand a chance with said list. You can't currently play this way unless you're absolutely sure your opponent is going to be doing the same, and even then it's not guaranteed since not all codices are equal, especially the ones that were written years ago, in a different edition with a different mindset. Chances are you'll be running into "net lists" when gaming with random people, and especially at tournaments, so if you don't like getting stomped over and over you'll have to play with optimized armies.

Want to run "fluffy" armies and have fun playing 40k again? Bitch at GW for being a "model company" first and a game company second, because that's why you can't. Don't point the finger at me or anyone else "ruining" your fun by playing optimized armies, because I'd love to be able to run the same kind of lists you do and just take whatever I want without having to worry about it, and be able to play a version of 40k where skill matters more than what OP crap I brought to the table, but GW doesn't allow for that without knowingly gimping yourself and I personally see no reason why I should have to do that.

Nucflash wrote:I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends.

I agree to an extent, if you're into story-telling and narrative play then you should really be playing RPGs, they're better-suited for that style of play and from what I hear FFG's 40k-themed games are pretty good. That said, I don't see the point in playing a competitive wargame if you literally don't care one iota about the fluff or even regard the models as anything more than better-detailed chess pieces. The game play matters a lot, especially if you want people to keep playing your game, but personally I like being able to get into the background of a game and reading about heroic characters and their deeds, etc., and personally I think cool models don't really need any explanation.

The models are usually the biggest draw of tabletop games like these, and probably the only reason why people even think about playing 40k anymore, because the game itself sure is a waste of fething time. I'm glad you find Warmachine a lot of fun, but I have to wonder why you bothered wasting your money on expensive models at all if you literally don't see any value in the hobby side of things. Wouldn't you have been better off just sticking with chess and spending the money on other worthwhile pursuits?

 Amaya wrote:
Deldar Beastspam disagrees.

In what edition? Because Dark Eldar anything in 6th is only worthy of being laughed off the table.

Maybe "beast spam" was playable in 5th (wouldn't ever call anything the DE codex could put out "broken", especially when GK came out merely half a year after DE) but sure as hell not anymore.