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.

DMB opens a WAAC thread?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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).

Sure you have. It stands for "That F*cking Guy", and is applicable in any situation where 2 or more people congregate.

LIke, driving down the road, there's shops on the left, two lane road, no center turn lane. You could go up the block a bit and use the roundabout to come back down the block to get to the shop that's currently on the left-hand side of the street...
...or you could be TFG and hold up people behind you while you attempt to make a left turn across busy traffic.

You could be TFG who brings their six year old into a hyper-violent, hyper-noisy R-rated movie.

You could be TFG who sits in the movie, texting all day, without turning your ringer off.

There are TFGs everywhere.

 ChazSexington wrote:
DMB opens a WAAC thread?

And of course never bothers to continue posting in his own threads

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
DMB opens a WAAC thread?

And of course never bothers to continue posting in his own threads

He expects people to be all "woe is you, your right and are being persecuted for no reason!" And seems to truly not understand he really is the problem.

*edit* Why do I even bother. Forget it.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
DMB opens a WAAC thread?

And of course never bothers to continue posting in his own threads

Not with any of his alt accounts that you're aware of, anyways.

How about being told you're a waac player because you bring a battle forged daemon factory list to an Unbound tourney (First opponent, Necrons with Transcendant C'Tan and Obelisk).

 don_mondo wrote:
How about being told you're a waac player because you bring a battle forged daemon factory list to an Unbound tourney (First opponent, Necrons with Transcendant C'Tan and Obelisk).

I had that happen back in 5th just after the Space Wolf Codex.
I was also called:
>Band Wagon
>TFG
>Cheese
And some things I cant post here.

Most of this was before I even pulled my armies out of their cases.

 ChazSexington wrote:
DMB opens a WAAC thread?

Agreed on all accounts

Not remembering anything of the user in question, but being familiar with similar threads on Dakka, I make the fair assumption that this is going to be a WAAC player complaining about others calling the culprit by its name?

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Anyone else tired of the liberal use of the label WAAC? I mean let's face it. Most people aren't WAaC. They don't cheat etc. We get labeled WAAC because we enjoy bringing good units? Seems like the only people who get upset about good units on tebtable are casual people who lack the ability to adapt.

The army doesn't take crossbows and muskets to war... They bring tier best or close to their best. Why should this be different. Because I like bringing venoms, stompas, baneblades, and punishers with pask inside doesn't make me a TFG or a WAAC player.

Ever heard of the Crab Pot Effect? That is why people say what they say.

Certain of us love to win. I'm one of those. Love it. Certain of us HATE to lose, beyond all reason. I'm not one of those. But those are the ones that cause the problems. they are the ones who build the ultimate Doomsday weapon, and then throw a fit when in round one, you annihilate his plan. His response? YOU'RE the WAAC guy.

Then theres the newb who, despite being a newb, hates to lose. His response when you (predictably) table him? "That army is just so powerful, theres just nothing a new guy can do. You should play something else". but then when you offerto switch armies, they mysteriously take their ball and leave, unwilling to admit or have it proven that the army wasnt the problem.

then theres the veteran players who HATE losing. they throw models, they start dropping F bombs, and they are generally disagreeable sorts who act SO NICE when they are clobbering you; and who you cant get away from FAST ENOUGH when they go off. And they then get on a forum and tell you how you have "no interest in fair fun games". What a crock.

The irony of course here is this: We're all trying to win! We all went about it differently, and by and large you dont really see carbon copy armies..much. Its RARE. Even when it happens, it could simply be a total lack fo imagination which WILL manifest itself in losses every time.

so yeah. titles like this are over used and ironically, often used by those to whom it actually applies. I'm not saying there are none out there. Ive met a few who made it clear that they'd rather stomp my face than be my friend. Treated me, personally, like an enemy. Acted affronted abotu every rules question, acted offended about every "hey thats cocked". But you know what? Beating them is more fun than beating anyone else.

 Jancoran wrote:
Acted affronted abotu every rules question, acted offended about every "hey thats cocked". But you know what? Beating them is more fun than beating anyone else.

Amen!
There are one or two people near me that do this. When I play them, if they call a die "cocked" (even if it clearly isn't), I'll call them on the same thing.
(I.e, the D6 is *slightly* raised off of the board because the very, very edge is on the edge of a Citadel forest, or in one of the "imprints" of the tree, so I'll happily let them know their's is "cocked" if they really were adamant.)

 Psienesis wrote:
*snip*

I know what it means... I meant the only people I've heard turn it in to a label to the point where it needs it's own abbreviation are people who play nerdsports

I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's childish on a forum where swearing is banned and even attempting to get around the swearing filter is banned we have an abbreviation for a derogatory label that includes a swear word

 RobPro wrote:

Spoiler:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
DMB opens a WAAC thread?

And of course never bothers to continue posting in his own threads

Not with any of his alt accounts that you're aware of, anyways.

He has fewer than he used to.

Bringing those stuff to a tournament is one thing. Then you are competitive player.
but if you bring those stuff every friggin game VS people who just got into the hobby, then you sir, are WAAC/TFG
Also, you can adapt to casual players as well...

ThatSwellFella wrote:
Bringing those stuff to a tournament is one thing. Then you are competitive player.
but if you bring those stuff every friggin game VS people who just got into the hobby, then you sir, are WAAC/TFG
Also, you can adapt to casual players as well...

It's not just the list though, it's how you use it.

I once set up a game against a new guy who asked what a land raider was. My force was a LR Crusader, his was a bunch of lasguns. The next 20 mins was a demonstration of why he needed some lascannons. Point was, he asked for the game, and it served a purpose. While my list was pretty much tailored and OP compared to his, there was no WAAC-ness to it.

Because most people who play 40k do not have the most basic comprehension of what actually makes you good at the game. What makes units good in game. And how to mitigate powerful units in game.

Seeing people come out with such drivel as 'I could buy the latest net list and be the best at 40k' is akin to me saying I could buy the latest Jordan shoes and become an NBA pro.

I personally blame GW for giving little to no coverage to people who spend the time and effort becoming above proficient at the game. That's why there is such ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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.

Also this ^^

 Selym wrote:

It's not just the list though, it's how you use it.

I once set up a game against a new guy who asked what a land raider was. My force was a LR Crusader, his was a bunch of lasguns. The next 20 mins was a demonstration of why he needed some lascannons. Point was, he asked for the game, and it served a purpose. While my list was pretty much tailored and OP compared to his, there was no WAAC-ness to it.

How you use it. Huge. I get told with somewhat annoying regularity how crazy I am for taking certain units. For example, I use Stingwings. I also use the Court of the Archon. They dont think me crazy when Im done. But they sure do like slining that "Anecdotal" word around a lot before I play them. HOW I sue those units is why im successful with them. I dont ask them to cure cancer, I ask them to do something specific and at their job: very good.

If I was their only experience seeing those units, they might feel a lot differently than they would later. I played a fairly infamous player (whose cheating shenanigans are pretty much known throughout the Warhammer universe bewcause of a certain video at a high profile event) and he was SOOOOO mad about my Stingwings. He hadn't seen them used before. Knew what they were, and had dismissed them.

So how people FEEL about this subject is what we're discussing, not reality. And lets face it: no one is responsible for that BUT you. No one MAKEs you feel anything. The way you use units can be frighteningly efective and seemingly unstoppable. Thats true. SEEMINGLY. But wouldnt you know it, after a couple games, you're modifying and altering lists and pretty soon you evolove closer and closer to the all comers list that can deal with most things most of the time instead of gravitating to the "I hope i dont see X matchup" type armies most people start with. You start learning what units you simply MUST ignore or circumnavigate around. And then they recede in aura and become just another problem to solve in your mind.

Sometimes the WAAC label is ill-deserved as when the fluffy player accuses the fair competitive player of being WAAC simply because they get their ass-handed to them in a match. A WAAAC is a cheat/rogue, plain and simple, and should not be confused when a player just plays strong.

A true competitive player simply wants the other player to bring his A-game and doesn't care how much the other player needs to proxy or take measures to otherwise ensure a fair playing field.

The true competitive player simply wants a true and clear test of mental skill. And then he focuses on winning to the best of his ability while remaining resolutely fair to the opponent. Resorting to unfair tactics is against the ethics of true competition. You win by being the better player than your opponent, not by cheating.

A cool guy tournament player turns off his tournament mode and switches into fluffy mode and totally changes his list when the other player wants to play fluffy.

Plenty of fluffy players are cool and totally upfront with being fluffy players and are okay with losing to the tournament-minded list. The big problem with fluffy is that whoever brings the fluffiest list is the one who will most surely lose. The aim of the fluffy player should really be "to lose with style!" So I think a big problem is admittedly fluffy players complaining when they lose. When you play fluffy, you really absolutely need to not care about winning or losing or you are being the "Whiney Ass" player. It's silly to complain about winning or losing when at the outset you decided not to make that your main concern.

The only thing that needs to be discussed before a match is will this be fluffy or competitive. If fluffy, both players should try to lose with style. If competitive, both players should bring their A-game but keep it fair. If you are unfair and a cheat you are WAAC.

Don't be an ass and bring a competitive list to a fluffy match or a fluffy list to a competitive match. Don't waste people's time. The TFG player is the ass who brings the tourney brutal list to the fluffy match. The Whiney Ass player is the player who brings a fluffy list to a tourney level match and then complains when they lose. Don't be either of those players. Don't be an ass.

col_impact wrote:
Sometimes the WAAC label is ill-deserved as when the fluffy player accuses the fair competitive player of being WAAC simply because they get their ass-handed to them in a match. A WAAAC is a cheat/rogue, plain and simple, and should not be confused when a player just plays strong.

A true competitive player simply wants the other player to bring his A-game and doesn't care how much the other player needs to proxy or take measures to otherwise ensure a fair playing field.

The true competitive player simply wants a true and clear test of mental skill. And then he focuses on winning to the best of his ability while remaining resolutely fair to the opponent. Resorting to unfair tactics is against the ethics of true competition. You win by being the better player than your opponent, not by cheating.

A cool guy tournament player turns off his tournament mode and switches into fluffy mode and totally changes his list when the other player wants to play fluffy.

Plenty of fluffy players are cool and totally upfront with being fluffy players and are okay with losing to the tournament-minded list. The big problem with fluffy is that whoever brings the fluffiest list is the one who will most surely lose. The aim of the fluffy player should really be "to lose with style!" So I think a big problem is admittedly fluffy players complaining when they lose. When you play fluffy, you really absolutely need to not care about winning or losing or you are being the "Whiney Ass" player. It's silly to complain about winning or losing when at the outset you decided not to make that your main concern.

The only thing that needs to be discussed before a match is will this be fluffy or competitive. If fluffy, both players should try to lose with style. If competitive, both players should bring their A-game but keep it fair. If you are unfair and a cheat you are WAAC.

Don't be an ass and bring a competitive list to a fluffy match or a fluffy list to a competitive match. Don't waste people's time. The TFG player is the ass who brings the tourney brutal list to the fluffy match. The Whiney Ass player is the player who brings a fluffy list to a tourney level match and then complains when they lose. Don't be either of those players. Don't be an ass.

The problem with this is that "fluffy" and "competitive" are not mutually exclusive when building lists. Again, it's about the player's attitude, not their list. I also disagree with the notion that all fluffy players should "just suck it up" and resign themselves to losing all the time. The aim from both parties, at all times, should be to have fun no matter the type of player/game. You can have a fluff bunny be TFG as easily as a competitive be a TFG. Being either type of player does not automatically make you WAAC and/or TFG... it's all down to how you think, act and play while gaming.

 Anfauglir wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Sometimes the WAAC label is ill-deserved as when the fluffy player accuses the fair competitive player of being WAAC simply because they get their ass-handed to them in a match. A WAAAC is a cheat/rogue, plain and simple, and should not be confused when a player just plays strong.

A true competitive player simply wants the other player to bring his A-game and doesn't care how much the other player needs to proxy or take measures to otherwise ensure a fair playing field.

The true competitive player simply wants a true and clear test of mental skill. And then he focuses on winning to the best of his ability while remaining resolutely fair to the opponent. Resorting to unfair tactics is against the ethics of true competition. You win by being the better player than your opponent, not by cheating.

A cool guy tournament player turns off his tournament mode and switches into fluffy mode and totally changes his list when the other player wants to play fluffy.

Plenty of fluffy players are cool and totally upfront with being fluffy players and are okay with losing to the tournament-minded list. The big problem with fluffy is that whoever brings the fluffiest list is the one who will most surely lose. The aim of the fluffy player should really be "to lose with style!" So I think a big problem is admittedly fluffy players complaining when they lose. When you play fluffy, you really absolutely need to not care about winning or losing or you are being the "Whiney Ass" player. It's silly to complain about winning or losing when at the outset you decided not to make that your main concern.

The only thing that needs to be discussed before a match is will this be fluffy or competitive. If fluffy, both players should try to lose with style. If competitive, both players should bring their A-game but keep it fair. If you are unfair and a cheat you are WAAC.

Don't be an ass and bring a competitive list to a fluffy match or a fluffy list to a competitive match. Don't waste people's time. The TFG player is the ass who brings the tourney brutal list to the fluffy match. The Whiney Ass player is the player who brings a fluffy list to a tourney level match and then complains when they lose. Don't be either of those players. Don't be an ass.

The problem with this is that "fluffy" and "competitive" are not mutually exclusive when building lists. Again, it's about the player's attitude, not their list. I also disagree with the notion that all fluffy players should "just suck it up" and resign themselves to losing all the time. The aim from both parties, at all times, should be to have fun no matter the type of player/game. You can have a fluff bunny be TFG as easily as a competitive be a TFG. Being either type of player does not automatically make you WAAC and/or TFG... it's all down to how you think, act and play while gaming.

It is, for example, perfectly fluffy to field an Elysian Drop list in early 6E. You could roflstomp the opponent 9 times out of 10 unless they had an equally powerful list. You cannon judge from that how bad the person is. Furthermore, for all you know, that ED list is being played in the silliest way possible, intentionally.

 Selym wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Sometimes the WAAC label is ill-deserved as when the fluffy player accuses the fair competitive player of being WAAC simply because they get their ass-handed to them in a match. A WAAAC is a cheat/rogue, plain and simple, and should not be confused when a player just plays strong.

A true competitive player simply wants the other player to bring his A-game and doesn't care how much the other player needs to proxy or take measures to otherwise ensure a fair playing field.

The true competitive player simply wants a true and clear test of mental skill. And then he focuses on winning to the best of his ability while remaining resolutely fair to the opponent. Resorting to unfair tactics is against the ethics of true competition. You win by being the better player than your opponent, not by cheating.

A cool guy tournament player turns off his tournament mode and switches into fluffy mode and totally changes his list when the other player wants to play fluffy.

Plenty of fluffy players are cool and totally upfront with being fluffy players and are okay with losing to the tournament-minded list. The big problem with fluffy is that whoever brings the fluffiest list is the one who will most surely lose. The aim of the fluffy player should really be "to lose with style!" So I think a big problem is admittedly fluffy players complaining when they lose. When you play fluffy, you really absolutely need to not care about winning or losing or you are being the "Whiney Ass" player. It's silly to complain about winning or losing when at the outset you decided not to make that your main concern.

The only thing that needs to be discussed before a match is will this be fluffy or competitive. If fluffy, both players should try to lose with style. If competitive, both players should bring their A-game but keep it fair. If you are unfair and a cheat you are WAAC.

Don't be an ass and bring a competitive list to a fluffy match or a fluffy list to a competitive match. Don't waste people's time. The TFG player is the ass who brings the tourney brutal list to the fluffy match. The Whiney Ass player is the player who brings a fluffy list to a tourney level match and then complains when they lose. Don't be either of those players. Don't be an ass.

The problem with this is that "fluffy" and "competitive" are not mutually exclusive when building lists. Again, it's about the player's attitude, not their list. I also disagree with the notion that all fluffy players should "just suck it up" and resign themselves to losing all the time. The aim from both parties, at all times, should be to have fun no matter the type of player/game. You can have a fluff bunny be TFG as easily as a competitive be a TFG. Being either type of player does not automatically make you WAAC and/or TFG... it's all down to how you think, act and play while gaming.

It is, for example, perfectly fluffy to field an Elysian Drop list in early 6E. You could roflstomp the opponent 9 times out of 10 unless they had an equally powerful list. You cannon judge from that how bad the person is. Furthermore, for all you know, that ED list is being played in the silliest way possible, intentionally.

And that has nothing to do with the way the guy acts while playing, how he acts is what decide if he is a one or not. As been pointed out the list don't really matter much if the guy isn't a prick.

I love it when people post "I'm a professional 40k player" or "I take this game seriously and play to win". Absolutely brilliant. However, while I find attributing any significance to winning a game of toy soldiers... interesting, this doesn't make them WAAC.

WAAC to me should only be applied to someone who will cheat to win [e.g. knowingly adding a couple of inches to movement, rolling dice without telling you what it's for, playing rules wrong to give an advantage etc.] There was a lot of accusations against the winner of the BAO for example for claiming 3++ for an Iron Halo, and pretending that the weapon skill of one character was higher than it was in the codex. If this is true, he was WAAC.

Everyone is entitled to bring whatever list they want as long as it's legal. Moaning that it's a cheese list makes you just as bad as the person bringing it as it shows a poor attitude to the game. One man's cheese list is another man's fluffy one. WAAC isn't about what list you bring, but instead is knowingly cheating throughout the game to give yourself an advantage.

I've played against whiners but that doesn't make them WAAC, it just makes them really annoying and makes everyone feel a little embarrassed for them.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:


I've played against whiners but that doesn't make them WAAC, it just makes them really annoying and makes everyone feel a little embarrassed for them.

So youre making a distinction between really annoying people and WAAC people. I think thats fair! Lol.

Sometimes people think others are WAAC/TFG because they aren't nearly as good as they think they are. I'm not just talking about people that are new to the game. Some people that have played for a long time aren't that good, but don't know it. They get beaten soundly and think it is because of some flaw in the character of the opponent and never realize the problem is that they aren't very good. They know certain units are "cheesy" and if you dare bring that unit, even if the list as a whole lacks quality units and/or synergy you are a WAACTFG.

Sometimes people think they are wonderful players because they rely on the strength of their list building or copying skills, but really don't have the in game talent to perform well with a substandard list. They could use less than optimal lists and improve their skill playing the game, but doing so risks exposing their weakness and letting their overinflated image of themselves suffer. Can't have that.

Personally list building isn't the part of the game I enjoy attempting to master. I prefer to use units that strike me as cool either because of fluff or rules (sometimes I like some models/units for its rules even if the unit really isn't that good) and play with them, then see how well I can do with the unit playing the game. Of course my list building mindset puts me at a disadvantage when playing someone who approaches list building from a more competitive angle. That is fine. I can't fault an opponent for having a different list building philosophy. The challenge of finding a way to win while using the models I want to use rather than the ones that the power balance dictactes I should use is something I like. I accept that the way I choose to play will put me at a disadvantage at times, and don't feel the need to shame those who don't limit themselves in the same manner.

(I'm not actively playing at the moment so my comments are more historical than current)

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

Sometimes people think they are wonderful players because they rely on the strength of their list building or copying skills, but really don't have the in game talent to perform well with a substandard list. They could use less than optimal lists and improve their skill playing the game, but doing so risks exposing their weakness and letting their overinflated image of themselves suffer. Can't have that.

So true. You should check out my blog. Dedicated to exactly this comment right here.