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.

Another post on these forums made me debate where that thin line exactly is that goes between Competitive and WAAC Players.
This is an open topic created for the purpose of discussion. Enjoy!

Its a pejorative meant to hurt. Honestly the definition has more to do with a sore-loser then than an actual WAAC player. That's not to say there are no WAAC players, just not as many as people believe.

Competitive = tries hard to win within the rules. Optimized lists with all the best units, ignoring fluff if it improves their chances of winning, etc. The game is about competition, a test of skill where the best player wins.

WAAC = win at ALL costs. Cheating, rules lawyering, abusing every RAW issue they can find that favors their army, etc. The game is all about winning, no matter what it takes.

The competitive player uses Shadowsun in a Farsight bomb army because a 2+ cover save on the Farsight bomb is great. The WAAC player does the same thing and then tells you that your models can't charge the Farsight bomb because they're wearing helmets and you have to draw LOS from their eyes.

The competitive player uses Shadowsun in a Farsight bomb army because a 2+ cover save on the Farsight bomb is great.

That's not really the competitive player's fault, though. If this combination isn't "supposed" to happen then it shouldn't be allowed in the rules.

 Sidstyler wrote:
That's not really the competitive player's fault, though. If this combination isn't "supposed" to happen then it shouldn't be allowed in the rules.

Who said it's a problem? I'm not criticizing the competitive player for doing it, I'm just saying that they're going to make choices like Farsight/Shadowsun based on their effectiveness at winning games instead of fluff.

I dunno, maybe I'm just too used to people phrasing it as if it were some huge problem and shaming people for doing it when there's really no one to blame but GW for even allowing it to begin with.

And this is why I posed the question. Is WAAC just something a sore loser yells, or is it a player reading a very liberal interpretation of the rules for his own benefit?

gealgain wrote:
And this is why I posed the question. Is WAAC just something a sore loser yells, or is it a player reading a very liberal interpretation of the rules for his own benefit?

It's a little of both. "WAAC" is often the instinctive response by certain people that hate the idea of someone having fun in a way that they don't approve of, but there are actual WAAC players out there who will rules lawyer/cheat/etc if it gives them a better chance of winning.

Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

If you're not sure if something is just within range or just out a competitive player will roll off for it, a WAAC player will say it is whatever one they want it to be.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:

Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.

Cheater - Flat out cheats. Either through fudging rules, points, dice rolls, measurements, movement, etc.

^this.

I see myself as competetive. I will rarely argue rules, admit when I'm wrong, but love a challenge, and will not toy around. I want to win and have fun.

My best friend is WAAC. He even says he's WAAC. He's argued rules, crawled things down to a halt in a match, fight over situations, suddenly forget rules he needs to know, And refuses to play if he's certain he cannot win.

Competitive player's response if you ask if you can take back a move, or do something you should have done earlier in the turn:
"Sure mate, no problem"
Then he crushes you.

WAAC player's response to the same question "No, sorry"
Then he crushes you.

Basically it all boils down to attitude, a "competitive" player can roflstomp you, you'll shake his hand, and start thinking what you could have done better, different or changes you could make to your list.

If a WAAC player does the same, you'll feel vaguely violated and start thinking how you can avoid playing him again in the future.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:
Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.
.

Actually, pretty much all of those things in the second paragraph would be crossing the line for me.

It's miniature wargaming, not an Olympic sport (and even then there is such a thing called 'gamesmanship'). I wouldn't play a second game against someone who did those things, and I'm pretty sure they would get nudged sideways out of the clubs I play at before too long.

 Pacific wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Personally, my definitions are as follows:
Competitive - Knows the rules and knows how questionable issues are generally played (or will ask). Fluff means nothing when it comes to list construction and has no qualms about bringing the nastiest combos he/she can devise as long as it's within the generally accepted definition of the rules. Wants to win, but wants the win on equal terms in a fair game.

WAAC - As above but in any disagreement will push for his/her advantage, regardless of what is normally accepted or how they think the actual rule should be played. As long as it helps them win they argue for it. Slow plays when it suits them, purposefully distracts opponents to get them to forget rules or abilities, and plays other mind games just to try and gain an advantage. Very much in a grey area on rules, but doesn't quite step over the line to full on cheating. Doesn't care about equal terms, just wants the win, but doesn't cross the line.
.

Actually, pretty much all of those things in the second paragraph would be crossing the line for me.

It's miniature wargaming, not an Olympic sport (and even then there is such a thing called 'gamesmanship'). I wouldn't play a second game against someone who did those things, and I'm pretty sure they would get nudged sideways out of the clubs I play at before too long.

And that's kind of my point. The WAAC player doesn't care about gamesmanship or sportsmanship, but still doesn't actually cheat. I avoid WAAC players like the plague for the same reasons as you.

I will relay my opinion on this with a little story....

Soooo.. There is a big Apocalypse Tourney in Brisbane, in the 'Bunker' at Mt Gravatt. I find out about this through some mates of mine that work there. I proceed to tell my buddies who live in Ipswich (about 45 Mins drive away ) about it - they were unaware. $60 Entry fee per side.

As I have been building an Imperator Titan for the last year and a half - this is my big opportunity to show it to the Local Community, and kick some Butts. It is a team event - a friend of mine Anthony is my team-mate - my other Buddies from Ipswich tell me they are playing as well - however - innocent me - I don't press them when they keep their Army list secret, and intersperse discussions about upcoming Tourney with childish giggles and secretive looks...

So - Tourney day rocks around - I show up with my Titan and about 2000 points in Vanilla Marines - these two 'Buddies' of mine show up - a COMPLETE Flyer list, with Termies /Chainfist combos.

They then proceed to do these ridiculous loops around my Titans legs 'We are INSIDE your Void shields , so they don't work at all blah/blah. Deep strike the Termies @ my feet, and proceed to destroy every weapon etc until I have 1 Structure point left, and then just step back (They are aware I have the 'Reserve' special rule, and can thus roll a 4/5/6 and get it back if/when destroyed.

Unfortunately for these WAAC lads, they don't communicate well - and one of them proceeds to take off the last SP. So - after my Titan falls to the ground destroyed - next turn - appears a new one(I rolled a 6) - and proceeds to HOSE them with 6 Volcanoes, a Hellstorm and Turbo Laser. Dead dogs.

To top this story off - true - The one who wrote the list - JUST TO BEAT MY EMPIE - comes up when he sees they are about to lose and says "Hey man - throw the game so we can get third prize - you are guaranteed second after all!!"

Suffice to say I tabled them - and lost all respect for the worse of the two WAACS at the same time.

WAAC = "How to lose friends and distance people."

 akira5665 wrote:
I will relay my opinion on this with a little story....

Let me get this straight: you took replacements on an emperor titan, in a 6000 point list, and you're complaining that they took a WAAC list?

Well - seeing as it was only 1 of my two strategic reserve options, and my army consisted of 1 Emperor, 60 Troops and 1 SM captain - yes.

Being Butthurt that I have 1 Unit that cost 4000 isn't WAAC - it is in fact - Tactics.

 akira5665 wrote:
Being Butthurt that I have 1 Unit that cost 4000 isn't WAAC - it is in fact - Tactics.

Sorry, but yes, it is a WAAC list. Everyone who's ever opened the Apocalypse book has figured out that replacements + emperor titan = win. It's one of those well-known things that is ridiculously overpowered, often banned by house rule, and changed in the new Apocalypse rulebook to only work with smaller units. If you're taking something that blatantly overpowered you lose the right to complain that someone took a counter list to deal with it.

OMG - you chime in on a thread, with little or no opinions other than ..

Peregroin - It's a little of both. b/"WAAC" is often the instinctive response by certain people that hate the idea of someone having fun in a way that they don't approve of, /b but there are actual WAAC players out there who will rules lawyer/cheat/etc if it gives them a better chance of winning.

Instead of sitting on a fencepole, waxing lyrical about my one strategic reserve - read the rest of the story. Perhaps you could see the other 90% of relevance regarding WAAC. And - by your own definition YOU are WAAC.

To fit into your idea of reason – I should have used my reserves roll to what – bring 1 Marine back on??

 akira5665 wrote:
Instead of sitting on a fencepole, waxing lyrical about my one strategic reserve - read the rest of the story. Perhaps you could see the other 90% of relevance regarding WAAC. And - by your own definition YOU are WAAC.

I read the story. You brought something completely overpowered, your opponents brought a counter. I fail to see what is WAAC about what they did, unless by "blah/blah" you mean you think that they're making up the part about being inside the void shields instead of just playing by the rules exactly as they were intended?

To fit into your idea of reason – I should have used my reserves roll to what – bring 1 Marine back on??

You should have taken a different asset instead. Or just accepted that if you're going to take one of the most blatantly overpowered things in Apocalypse it's entirely fair for your opponents to bring a counter to it so they have a chance. "Surprise, I have an emperor titan and if you kill it I just bring it back" is just as bad as bringing anti-titan terminators.

Mate - An Emperor Titan is not OP - there are clear rulesets - it is probably just out of your reach/ability, thus your opinion.


By definition - your Sig disagrees with you..

Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, Forge World, and White Dwarf, IS PART OF THE GAME. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

Done with trying to justify why pre-planning an Army, and trying to get a place by cheating is WAAC.

Bye Troll.

He isn't arguing that the Imperator is not part of the game, he's pointing out that it's considered overpowered, especially in the context that you described. A clear ruleset doesn't mean something cannot be considered overpowered, look at the oceans of tears markerlights and heldrakes have generated. Your opponents had two choices. A.) Get wrecked by the Imperator B.) Counter it. I think most people would define that as 'list tailoring' but that's another topic altogether.

On Topic: WAAC players will rules lawyer, slow the gameplay down and argue minuscule details to eke out any slight advantage they can. Often they'll 'forget' certain debilitating rules that affect them while remaining hawkish on anything that will affect you. It's technically not cheating but it's a pretty gray area if the person in question habitually forgets some rules, while demonstrating a clear ability to remember other rules to the letter.

B.) Counter it. I think most people would define that as 'list tailoring' but that's another topic altogether. - List tailoring is so WAAC, it is considered cheating by most. How is that a separate topic?

 akira5665 wrote:
Mate - An Emperor Titan is not OP - there are clear rulesets - it is probably just out of your reach/ability, thus your opinion.

It is part of the game, but you're talking about Apocalypse, where balance is even worse than in normal 40k. So there are two ways of looking at this:

1) You brought something that is part of the game, and so did your opponents. Neither of you can complain.

or

2) Your opponents list tailored, but you brought something blatantly overpowered that would ruin the game if they didn't. You can complain about WAAC lists, but you're just as guilty of it yourself.

Done with trying to justify why pre-planning an Army, and trying to get a place by cheating is WAAC.

Pre-planning an army is no worse than what you attempted to do. You know perfectly well that you were trying to surprise them with something incredibly overpowered and would have tabled them effortlessly with if if they hadn't brought a counter-list for it. It really sounds like you're just mad that you didn't get to win.

@akira

So include it in your definition of WAAC? I don't consider it WAAC or cheating tbh. In a tournament setting a list tailor will eventually come up against the rock to his scissors.

 akira5665 wrote:
B.) Counter it. I think most people would define that as 'list tailoring' but that's another topic altogether. - List tailoring is so WAAC, it is considered cheating by most. How is that a separate topic?

List tailoring is considered TFG behavior in normal 40k, where things are relatively balanced and you can reasonably make a TAC list that can handle most, if not all, potential opponents. Things are completely different in Apocalypse games, especially when you're talking about titans that are thousands of points too cheap because GW wanted to motivate people to build them. GW deliberately wrote the rules for Apocalypse to favor doing "cool" things even if it means that certain combinations are so overpowered they break the game, assuming that players will always only do the cool stuff and have an unwritten rule not to exploit the worst balance issues. Your opponents had two choices:

1) Play a "game" in which they remove models from the table with little hope of ever killing the titan, and even if they succeed it comes right back.

or

2) Bring a dedicated anti-titan list to have a chance of winning.

You're just mad that building a titan doesn't mean you automatically win.

You are amusing me now. A Model I built is WAAC?To use it is WAAC?

I did lose one game that day - to two Redshirts that worked at the store(On their day off) with a very impressive IG/Valkyrie styled army - never bothered me that they beat me.

I think it is you two who are skimming over the details to justify some kind of mindset that having a scratch built Empie is WAAC.

1. They TAILORED their list to beat ME. I built mine with no knowledge of other Armies.

2. They looked up every rule possible before/during and after the Tourney to invalidate the game.

3. They tried to get me to throw the game to get a place/prize..

If focusing on the fact that I had an Imperator, and used one of like 12 rules that you got in original APOC to help me - then yeah - I'm WAAC.

"It really sounds like you're just mad that you didn't get to win." - I did win against them. Perhaps you should read more, and type less? I lost to two great players with an exceptionally well done list. Came second in the Tourney - other than the one game I played with the WAAC guys, it was a great weekend.

Here are a few things written on Capture and Control on this subject.

http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2011/01/for-love-of-game.html
http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2011/01/next-level-gaming-manipulation-of.html
http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2010/12/how-to-deal-with-tfg.html

That being said, I agree with the analogy about shadowsun/farsight and attempting to deny a charge or LoS due to a model wearing a helmet and not having eyes.

It is actually W.A.A.C.A.H., you can figure out what the AH stands for.

I think that most people who have read the previous dozen or so posts would say 'Akira'?