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.

try "control r"

Generally fixes any internet issues for me.

Only got my phone :-(. Cheers for the suggestion though. It's been 16 hours now - so I know it's not a quick temporary thing..

Seems like the only people who get upset about good units on tebtable are casual people who lack the ability to adapt.

This sentence is just flamebait and completely unnecessary and unhelpful.

But yeah, the term "WAAC" gets thrown around way too much. The term "TFG" gets thrown around way too much as well.

Both are just derogatory terms used to dismiss people instead of actually addressing the issue.

Ah-ha! I deleted all cookies and internet history and re-started my phone. It all works now! Cheers Swastakowey!
Sorry to have posted irrelevant garbage in the thread guys!

Agreed.

And, yeah. Ultimately, choosing units based off of their power and utility isn't exclusivity WAAC behavior. It's the behavior of someone who wants to win, and that's not intrinsically the same thing.

The difference between a WAAC/TFG and a competitive player comes down to attitude. A competitive player will optimize his list and tactics as much as he can, while still being gracious and respectful to his opponent.- a competitive player will be respectful and have a decent attitude, whether he wins or loses. A WAAC/TFG is concerned only with winning and will exploit every rule and argue every minutiae in order to get an advantage. A WAAC/TFG will list tailor if necessary, avoid players/lists that have a decent chance of beating his and will be have a poor attitude when he loses.

It's all about attitude. Fluff-bunnies and casual players tend to have trouble making that distinction, in my experience.

So... Lets say you meet someone new and ask them if they want to get a game in.

You tell them ahead of time (as 40k is a gentlemens game now) that you use a purly fluffy list. It has some optimized units but you dont spam them and there is very little synergy.

That person then says me too. How many points?

You agree to 1500. He shows up with Sisters...

2 Pipe organs, 5 transports all multi melta. Each transport has 5 sisters with 4 meltas and a combi melta. Celestine and accompanying serphim.

He's not WAAC? Or TFG?

What WAAC/TFG traits is he showing? Having a list that contains zero poor units in it isn't exclusively WAAC/TFG behavior.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's all about attitude. Fluff-bunnies and casual players tend to have trouble making that distinction, in my experience.

Having once been a WAAC and possible TGF, I can tell you it is attitude. Recently my issue has been with the Attitude. This is how I perceive the difference:
Competitive: Pulls out a strong list and usually lets you know first that it is a Competitive List. When they see you have a "Fluffy List" and either changer his list, lets you decide about terrain, who goes first and things like then when it is a "For Fun Game." They would look at my list and go "Cool Rough Rider, this should be different."
TFG: Usually tries to arrange things so no mater what happens it was the other guy who was wrong and will even make fun of your choices. I have even had them look at my list and say "You are taking Rough Riders, that is a piece of unit and I refuse to play with a list that has them."
WAAC: Will do anything to win, Fast and Hidden Dice, miss measurements and even outright cheating. Emperor Forbid you call him/her on any of it. Would look at my list and see the Rough Riders and just chuckle at how much he is going kill them off.

Personally I would play the WAAC than TFG

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What WAAC/TFG traits is he showing? Having a list that contains zero poor units in it isn't exclusively WAAC/TFG behavior.

When he said "Me too" to fluffy and no synergy. He went min max on meq with meltaspam. IMHO hes a TFG. That instance alone is enough for my to nolonger play against him in any setting.

Oh yeah. He took that avenger flyer thing with the mega bolter in the front. Plus he was basically smirking the whole time.

I think that being a competitive player you often unfairly get labeled as a "WAAC" player, however as mentioned I believe that it comes down to attitude and how you go about dealing with your opponent before, during and after the game.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
WAAC/TFG is not about the army you bring but more about the attitude.

Came here to type this. Being a true WAAC player or a true TFG is almost always nothing to do with what you put on the table and almost always everything to do with your attitude to a) the hobby and b) the other player(s).

Absolutely agree.

People who think there are no people who would fall under the WAAC/TFG heading are either blissfully ignorant, or have an friggin' awesome gaming group.

Such people don't necessarily cheat while they play (but it's damn likely) but we gamers don't exactly have good social skills, and they usually downright dredge the bottom of the barrel. Seriously, if you feel the need to roll your eyes AT ALL do to shenanigans during a game, you opponent is one of those people.

Believe me I have had plenty experience with guys who will downright break the rules if they think they can get away with it. Several of them I actively avoid playing - ever.

 DeffDred wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What WAAC/TFG traits is he showing? Having a list that contains zero poor units in it isn't exclusively WAAC/TFG behavior.

When he said "Me too" to fluffy and no synergy. He went min max on meq with meltaspam.

So you're basically trying to assert that he lied?

Do you not remember the "Are my DE Cheese?" thread from a few months ago, Blax?

I have much less of a problem with Waac types (as long as they aren't sacrificing all goodwill in the process) than I have with TFGs.

What comes to mind for TFGs are the people who constantly complain about everything, and not in a friendly good natured way.

Deployment: "ugh, hammer and anvil, I've already lost."

1st turn: "how'd I lose a terminator, on turn one!? This game is over."

2nd turn: "make an enemy fail a morale test? Tactical objectives are so stupid, why are we playing with them."

3rd turn: "great, there goes my chapter master, this is so stupid." "I shot him with a demolisher cannon." "Yea but he's a chapter master, that shouldn't kill him."

4th turn: "how did my centurions miss? Again! They're worthless!"

5th turn: "wow you have nothing left, guess I won."

 DeffDred wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What WAAC/TFG traits is he showing? Having a list that contains zero poor units in it isn't exclusively WAAC/TFG behavior.

When he said "Me too" to fluffy and no synergy. He went min max on meq with meltaspam. IMHO hes a TFG. That instance alone is enough for my to nolonger play against him in any setting.

Oh yeah. He took that avenger flyer thing with the mega bolter in the front. Plus he was basically smirking the whole time.

Well, he wasn't lying. For Sisters that is a fluffy list. Far from win at all cost. The Avenger's nasty, but far from unkillable (2hp, AV 10, really?)
If they all had 4 meltas he's cheating. Basic squads can only take 2.
Had that been me, and WAAC, it would have included Inquisition in rhinos with plasma, and Rets with heavy bolters and a Simulacrum, along with a Prescience Inquisitor, Bastion and 3 Exorcists. That was, in all essence, quite friendly (other then the cheating with meltas. His girls still have to get out to shoot. You should have had a close game, at the very least.

WAAC is all about attitude. You can run an optimised list without being an donkey-cave. If you want to run sub-standard units, sure, tell your opponent, but expect them to be exactly that-substandard. TFG I'll just be an bastard right back if you don't clean up your act.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What WAAC/TFG traits is he showing? Having a list that contains zero poor units in it isn't exclusively WAAC/TFG behavior.

When he said "Me too" to fluffy and no synergy. He went min max on meq with meltaspam.

So you're basically trying to assert that he lied?

That is a perfectly fluffy list. They like their melta.
Also my Two cents. Understand that you will be smashed from time to time. It friggin happens. you take this gamble if you play the game.
Just because you lost to a good list doesnt mean the guy is a TFG/WAAC. People need to stop whining about stupid stuff like this jesus. I want to bring a knight, it isnt cheesy, just good.

I consistently play with two gentleman, Guy 1 and Guy 2. Guy 1 play Tau, and the couple of times I played him, he brought two Riptides and a fairly strong list. That being said, he was super agreeable the whole time, would stop and explain new Tau rules to me, and both times sat down and chatted with me about how to beat Tau. Guy 2 has several lists, one fluffy and a competitive DE and and a strong Nids list. Both times he asked me ahead if I wanted to play against his lists. I beat him for the first time recently. He is also super agreeable, we ask and talk about things we don't know/aren't clear on, and generally have a great time. While both these guys run strong near-tournament lists, I would gladly play and get beat by them everytime.

WAAC/TFG labels exist for a reason and it's 100% attitude. Bring your cheesiest list, and I will gladly play you if you're not a dick.

Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

I think what people tend to forget is that WAAC and TFG aren't mutually exclusive; simply because someone is exhibiting signs of WAAC doesn't make them TFG and vice versa...although that's not generally the case.

Honestly, I think WAAC is just an attempt at people referring to someone being TFG without having the stones to say it, that and people can't seem to get over losing. If they take a fluffy list and get steamrolled because their opponent doesn't play that way, WAAC. If they've only played three games and someone beats them handily, WAAC. The problem exists on both sides of the argument; those that seem to think it's OK to be TFG simply because they can and those that can't stand losing so much that they have to degrade their opponent.

Either way, I just read the OP's history and LAWL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

If you exclusively buy one combo (nothing good comes to mind ATM, let's say FMC Circus), and run ONLY that list, and get mad when it gets nerfed, yeah, you're a donkey cave. Your army of Nids getting the nerf bat or BA assault armies getting the nerf bat is not TFG behavior. I'm referring EXCLUSIVELY to people who focus on one cheese list/rule and get mad when it gets nerfed. The point of a codex is to have multiple units to choose from.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

If you exclusively buy one combo (nothing good comes to mind ATM, let's say FMC Circus), and run ONLY that list, and get mad when it gets nerfed, yeah, you're a donkey cave. Your army of Nids getting the nerf bat or BA assault armies getting the nerf bat is not TFG behavior. I'm referring EXCLUSIVELY to people who focus on one cheese list/rule and get mad when it gets nerfed. The point of a codex is to have multiple units to choose from.

So what if I buy a cheese factory? TFG isn't about what I field, it's about how I act when I'm fielding it.

Buying the cheese factory is a strong indicator, but not quite proof positive. I'm sure someone, somewhere actually had fluffy reasons for wanting a jet seer council.

I think it's certainly true that some people (a lot of people) aren't able to tell the difference between: someone playing well, and someone cheating.

I remember being introduced to a game called Thurn and Taxis by my (then) girlfriend. Thurn and Taxis is a board game very like Ticket to Ride. She had played it with other people, and I think she usually beat them. The game is a race to build longer and longer routes until you reach a certain goal. I imagine It is possible to play the game on your own because the players don't need to interact much. A lot of people do just focus on building their own routes and ignore what other players are doing, but that isn't how I played it...

I quickly learned that the most annoying thing in Thurn and Taxis is when someone takes cards for their route, which you need for your route. It occasionally happens by chance, but after a few games I realized you could do this on purpose, and so I pretty much did it all the time. I would watch her cards, remember what she needed, and do everything I could to disrupt her routes. I even collected multiples of cards I didn't need, and cluttered up my hand with them, so there were parts she could never finish.

There is nothing wrong with playing this way. It is completely within the rules. I'm sure if there was a tournament somewhere, then that is how people would play. It was really effective (and honestly, made the game much deeper and more interesting). Needless to say she didn't share my enthusiasm for the strategy. From her point of view, playing good and messing up her route so she couldn't finish first was 'cheating'. By about the 5th time we played she was absolutely livid. She got so angry I thought she was going to flip the board, and she shouted at me and said I was playing like a... Well I can't repeat what she said

The most hurtful part though, was she compared me to someone else she used to know. Some guy who was super competitive, but would also 'literally' cheat at games (hiding cards on his lap, making up rules, moving pieces when no one was looking etc...) the guy sounded like a jerk. This really annoyed me, because I'm not competitive, I actually really enjoy taunting people and then seeing how smug they are when they beat me. What I really enjoy about games is the strategy and the puzzle. I do tend to play hardball, and I am super sneaky with my in-game plans and schemes... But I would never actually 'cheat' (where's would be the fun in that?).

Taking this back to Waac players. Not everyone who brings a fiendishly tough list is tfg. In fact the more you play, and the more tfgs you meet, the more you realize that bringing your best game is the only sensible move. If you are unfortunate enough to encounter some super competitive jerk, then you can just put that guy in his place. He might go off saying you cheated, but you might also have an amazing close game and find he's not so bad. If you end up meeting someone who's just fluffy and casual, then you can always tone it down. Try more risky strategies, or even leave some units out so it's more fair. If you brought your best list then it's always your call, and you never have to walk away feeling bitter about your opponent turning up with something you had no chance against.

 Frankenberry wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

If you exclusively buy one combo (nothing good comes to mind ATM, let's say FMC Circus), and run ONLY that list, and get mad when it gets nerfed, yeah, you're a donkey cave. Your army of Nids getting the nerf bat or BA assault armies getting the nerf bat is not TFG behavior. I'm referring EXCLUSIVELY to people who focus on one cheese list/rule and get mad when it gets nerfed. The point of a codex is to have multiple units to choose from.

So what if I buy a cheese factory? TFG isn't about what I field, it's about how I act when I'm fielding it.

True, but I feel intentionally cheesing the rules falls into that category. 40k isn't balanced, but I feel that when they nerf those specific combos its not a bad thing and most of the people upset are people who relied solely on those lists. Again, this is different from say Nids who run one list competitively because thats all that is worthwhile.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

If you exclusively buy one combo (nothing good comes to mind ATM, let's say FMC Circus), and run ONLY that list, and get mad when it gets nerfed, yeah, you're a donkey cave. Your army of Nids getting the nerf bat or BA assault armies getting the nerf bat is not TFG behavior. I'm referring EXCLUSIVELY to people who focus on one cheese list/rule and get mad when it gets nerfed. The point of a codex is to have multiple units to choose from.

So what if I buy a cheese factory? TFG isn't about what I field, it's about how I act when I'm fielding it.

True, but I feel intentionally cheesing the rules falls into that category. 40k isn't balanced, but I feel that when they nerf those specific combos its not a bad thing and most of the people upset are people who relied solely on those lists. Again, this is different from say Nids who run one list competitively because thats all that is worthwhile.

See, while I get what you're saying (in my group I've got a demons AND eldar player /cry) but that's not the fault of the player, that's poor play-testing/balancing done by GW. Can someone really be TFG if they recognize different army patterns that offer the most optimized way to win?

I've been tabled and still felt fine about it because we had fun. After a certain point I was rolling so bad that we were both laughing about it.

 Frankenberry wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Sidenote: buying units for that one strong combo and crying when it gets nerfed in the next edition makes you TFG

So I spend thousands of dollars building an army that's centered around a particular tactic and six months later, GW releases rules that complete negate my need for the army. Apparently, I'm an donkey-cave for being upset about it.

This is not TFG behavior and it's insulting the vast majority of those currently fed up with how GW treats various armies.

If you exclusively buy one combo (nothing good comes to mind ATM, let's say FMC Circus), and run ONLY that list, and get mad when it gets nerfed, yeah, you're a donkey cave. Your army of Nids getting the nerf bat or BA assault armies getting the nerf bat is not TFG behavior. I'm referring EXCLUSIVELY to people who focus on one cheese list/rule and get mad when it gets nerfed. The point of a codex is to have multiple units to choose from.

So what if I buy a cheese factory? TFG isn't about what I field, it's about how I act when I'm fielding it.

True, but I feel intentionally cheesing the rules falls into that category. 40k isn't balanced, but I feel that when they nerf those specific combos its not a bad thing and most of the people upset are people who relied solely on those lists. Again, this is different from say Nids who run one list competitively because thats all that is worthwhile.

See, while I get what you're saying (in my group I've got a demons AND eldar player /cry) but that's not the fault of the player, that's poor play-testing/balancing done by GW. Can someone really be TFG if they recognize different army patterns that offer the most optimized way to win?

Eh, see, again its tough to call, as I think TFG lists are entirely situational. I could say all riptides are TFG cheese because I lose to them, but that'd make me TFG by effect.

 DeffDred wrote:
So... Lets say you meet someone new and ask them if they want to get a game in.

You tell them ahead of time (as 40k is a gentlemens game now) that you use a purly fluffy list. It has some optimized units but you dont spam them and there is very little synergy.

That person then says me too. How many points?

You agree to 1500. He shows up with Sisters...

2 Pipe organs, 5 transports all multi melta. Each transport has 5 sisters with 4 meltas and a combi melta. Celestine and accompanying serphim.

He's not WAAC? Or TFG?

You really can't tell from this, which is exactly the point of this discussion. He could have brought four riptides and the proceed to charge them into your front-lines in order to show you the power of close combat tau for all you know. Pointing at someone and calling him WAAC the second he plops down his list, makes you TFG, not him.

Besides, what else is a sisters player supposed to bring?

Kangodo wrote:
To make a MTG-analogy: WAAC is when you bring your Stax-deck to a casual multiplayer game with friends.
Some lists, in both games, are perfectly fine for a tournament where the goal is to win and not to have fun with other people.
But for a friendly casual game they are anti-fun.

Depends. We had a new player recently in our group, who turned out to be a previous Grand Prix winner many years ago. In turn 1 he plopped down a Black Lotus, two moxes, a dual land, time-walked and time-twistered a lot and proceeded to beat everyone to death with Yawgmoth Daemons before they got to draw their first card. Obviously, this was the deck that won him a Grand Prix years ago. We then joked that we could beat him up, steal his cards and get flight tickets to Hawaii for everyone by selling them. After the game (which took about 5 minutes) he asked to borrow one of our decks, because he didn't have any other cards yet, and we had a great time.

It's your attitude that makes you WAAC or TFG, not what you bring to a game.

 Smacks wrote:
I think it's certainly true that some people (a lot of people) aren't able to tell the difference between: someone playing well, and someone cheating.

I remember being introduced to a game called Thurn and Taxis by my (then) girlfriend. Thurn and Taxis is a board game very like Ticket to Ride. She had played it with other people, and I think she usually beat them. The game is a race to build longer and longer routes until you reach a certain goal. I imagine It is possible to play the game on your own because the players don't need to interact much. A lot of people do just focus on building their own routes and ignore what other players are doing, but that isn't how I played it...

I quickly learned that the most annoying thing in Thurn and Taxis is when someone takes cards for their route, which you need for your route. It occasionally happens by chance, but after a few games I realized you could do this on purpose, and so I pretty much did it all the time. I would watch her cards, remember what she needed, and do everything I could to disrupt her routes. I even collected multiples of cards I didn't need, and cluttered up my hand with them, so there were parts she could never finish.

There is nothing wrong with playing this way. It is completely within the rules. I'm sure if there was a tournament somewhere, then that is how people would play. It was really effective (and honestly, made the game much deeper and more interesting). Needless to say she didn't share my enthusiasm for the strategy. From her point of view, playing good and messing up her route so she couldn't finish first was 'cheating'. By about the 5th time we played she was absolutely livid. She got so angry I thought she was going to flip the board, and she shouted at me and said I was playing like a... Well I can't repeat what she said

The most hurtful part though, was she compared me to someone else she used to know. Some guy who was super competitive, but would also 'literally' cheat at games (hiding cards on his lap, making up rules, moving pieces when no one was looking etc...) the guy sounded like a jerk. This really annoyed me, because I'm not competitive, I actually really enjoy taunting people and then seeing how smug they are when they beat me. What I really enjoy about games is the strategy and the puzzle. I do tend to play hardball, and I am super sneaky with my in-game plans and schemes... But I would never actually 'cheat' (where's would be the fun in that?).

Taking this back to Waac players. Not everyone who brings a fiendishly tough list is tfg. In fact the more you play, and the more tfgs you meet, the more you realize that bringing your best game is the only sensible move. If you are unfortunate enough to encounter some super competitive jerk, then you can just put that guy in his place. He might go off saying you cheated, but you might also have an amazing close game and find he's not so bad. If you end up meeting someone who's just fluffy and casual, then you can always tone it down. Try more risky strategies, or even leave some units out so it's more fair. If you brought your best list then it's always your call, and you never have to walk away feeling bitter about your opponent turning up with something you had no chance against.

This. I play a lot of board games as well, and I've been called a cheater a bunch of times for using strategies which aren't written into the manual. For example, in a game of Clue with my family I was told that it's impossible to guess who murdered whom where unless I've asked for every single room, weapon and person. When I told them that I didn't need to, since I knew what cards they are holding because of the questions they've been asking, I was told that I was cheating and that the game doesn't work that way

It's pretty much the same in Warhammer 40k. Bring a legal list, don't bend any rules, don't start fights over the number of models hit by a template, be polite when winning and losing, go easy on people who are playing less competitive lists, and you'll still be a called WAAC TFG because you brought a better list than your opponent.

A Douchebag with an excuse at the end of the day is still just a douchebag that know they are douchebags at the end of the day.

Really, the only labels that should ever be needed are TFG and potentially something like "pleasure to play against." We all play the game with hopes to actually win, it's just how much of a D-bag you become while attempting to do so.

People also need to realize that list building is an activity that many people in this hobby find to be extremely fun. Considering the fact that getting games in can be a chore for most of us, it's annoying that even though I could be a "pleasure to play against" (we need a better term for that), I could be considered a tool for playing a list that I built "too efficiently." That fact that I should ever need to worry about that is annoying enough...it's a wargame for pete's sake.

I personally tend to think labels like "TFG" are childish, but that's just me, I hate labelling of people at the best of times let alone labelling people in a derogative manner with terms dreamed up within a niche community (I can't say I've heard "TFG" used outside of nerdsports).