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.

One that does not blur the lines between competitive play and "all the costs".

Unfortunately, there's more to it than simply what list you bring, a lot of it, imo comes down to personality and attitude while playing. Both of those things cannot simply be quantified with a number or clear black and white distinction.

Even more, a great deal depends on your context and the setting you're playing in. If I think someone is a WAAC jerk, and then they say "but the internet said I'm not" I'm NOT going to change my opinion on them.

Why do you need such a clear definition?

Because a word without a clear definition is pointless and serves to bundle together the right and the wrong by virtue of having a blurred meaning.

As that word is often used to call forum member names and it's even got its own dictionary entry, it would make sense to have it defined.

But you cannot define it exactly, as an exact definition for the term does nothing. What is WAAC in one location may not be in another.

Do you mean you use a word which you acknowledge to have a meaning that can be stretched by any of its users ?

It is hardly unique. Words and their meanings get stretched all over the place, and not just on Dakka. Interpretation of the terms requires that you look into the situation and fully understand the context from which it came.

morgoth wrote:
Do you mean you use a word which you acknowledge to have a meaning that can be stretched by any of its users ?

Looking up 'context' in the dictionary might help you out.

morgoth wrote:
Because a word without a clear definition is pointless and serves to bundle together the right and the wrong by virtue of having a blurred meaning.

The problem (here, at least) is that 'right' and 'wrong' are just as blurred and ill-defined as 'WAAC' is.

morgoth wrote:
Do you mean you use a word which you acknowledge to have a meaning that can be stretched by any of its users ?

Welcome to how English works.

English is the very definition of a fluid, living language. Users are constantly altering definitions and inventing new words.

It is not a word per se. It is Acronym. It stands for Win At All Costs. That is the definition and it is self definitive.

The definition is impossible because different terms mean different things to different people. The best IMO definition is that it's someone who plays only to win and eschews their own fun and the fun of others in the pursuit of winning.

To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more. Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

It doesn't matter if one agrees with this or not, my point is that (in my opinion) WAAC is also a term that covers a person who reads rules for anything they can exploit for an advantage their opponent isn't prepared for.

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more.

Do you also consider it WAAC to roll a 3+ armor save for your tactical marine when hit by a lasgun? Because that's the same level of rule "ambiguity" that there was with vehicles firing gun emplacements before the rules were changed. And it's very easy to explain fluff-wise: the driver gets out of the vehicle and fires the gun, the gun has a remote control system that the vehicle is using, etc.

Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

That's not WAAC, it's just GW failing to write functioning rules. Remember that there is a clear precedent for "weird" effects not granting cover saves: markerlights. And it uses the exact same "it's not a wound or glance/pen, therefore no saves" argument. So why is one WAAC and the other is just how the game works?

One of the problems with defining it is how much emphasis you put on the “all” in “win at all costs” Are you cheating, or just pushing the grey areas to your advantage? Using out-of-game psychological tricks to screw with your opponent? Or just being abrasive, or disregarding the fluff in your codex to build an effective list?

WAAC is a term that gets tossed around a lot. It means different things to different people. If you asked both my mother-in-law and my 8 year old son to define the word “Rude” and what behavior it covers, you’d get widely divergent answers. WAAC is very similar.

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more. Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

It doesn't matter if one agrees with this or not, my point is that (in my opinion) WAAC is also a term that covers a person who reads rules for anything they can exploit for an advantage their opponent isn't prepared for.

Pretty much this in my opinion.

I'd like to add that it's not an army that makes someone WAAC, it's the attitude behind someone. I think someone could have a really competitive list (say AV13 Necrons or something like that) yet if they abide by all the rules and are generally nice to play against that makes them competitive whereas WAAC starts to delve into the realm of having one set of rules for your opponent and one set of rules for yourself (basically, exploiting rules and situations to your advantage while not allowing your opponent to do the same, giving you an unfair advantage). It could also be interpreted playing things as RAW but not RAI (Death Ray firing into CC, Revenent Titan on Skyshieild Landing Pad, etc).

This is my opinion on it - as someone said it's a very blurry line so definitions will be different for different people.

Here's mine:

For this group of players, success is a binary state, and that success is determined by exactly one thing - winning. The point of the game, possibly the ONLY point of the game is to win it. It is easy for the other player groups to revile this group because it produces behavior antithetical to their way of playing, but such behavior is perfectly congruent with the way the game is supposed to be played for these players. They will rules lawyer to advantage because it can help them win, and if you aren't able to argue well enough why my interpretation of the rules is wrong, then you SHOULD lose. Likewise, if I bring the strongest list in the game, and you don't, you should lose more often, and complaining about my list is just a cover-up for the fact that you brought a weaker list.

Winners have a strange relationship with dice - they don't want the game to be based on the luck of the dice, because they don't want to lose just because someone got lucky (or they got unlucky), but at the same time want to be able to come back from behind with a little luck if it means they can pull out a win. Also, this group doesn't want there to be serious game balance. Part of the fun is to come up with stronger and stronger combinations of units to give them that edge. If every army were roughly as powerful, then you wouldn't get to use your peak brainpower to come up with secret combinations that others didn't know about that would allow you to crush your opponents. List building is a skill, after all, and not everyone is as skilled as others.

It is, in a way, the purest, most black and white way to look at the game. People's complaints about pretty much anything tend to be irrelevant. Who cares if I use a spam list if it gets me the win? Why are you letting fluff get in the way of you winning? I'll take the victory, but I'll also likely think less of you for not being as clever as me, or not "wanting" it as much.

And a comparison to other types.

To me WAAC is actively trying to win at the cost of a game's integrity. This namely is cheating (both hard and soft forms) as this disregards their opponent and the game completely all just so that they can say "I win". As others have said ultimately a WAAC player just plays with an attitude that ruins the game for their opponent regardless of what kind of player they are (even competitive players).

A lot of the time though (on forums at least) people attribute WAAC to arguing RAW which I find wrong. They slander the RAW arguer with WAAC player trying to gain an unfair advantage and ignoring "obvious" RAI. I find this wrong for many reasons namely that it assumes the RAW side plays that army or would actually play those rules IRL when neither has to be true to read the rulebook. But also RAI is very subjective as there so no actual way to know what GW's intentions are (since they don't just say them) and it's very easy to make an argument for or against any RAI as a result. So it annoys me to no end when some people get extremely arrogant and rude just because they think they are correct on such a subjective matter.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more.

Do you also consider it WAAC to roll a 3+ armor save for your tactical marine when hit by a lasgun? Because that's the same level of rule "ambiguity" that there was with vehicles firing gun emplacements before the rules were changed. And it's very easy to explain fluff-wise: the driver gets out of the vehicle and fires the gun, the gun has a remote control system that the vehicle is using, etc.

Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

That's not WAAC, it's just GW failing to write functioning rules. Remember that there is a clear precedent for "weird" effects not granting cover saves: markerlights. And it uses the exact same "it's not a wound or glance/pen, therefore no saves" argument. So why is one WAAC and the other is just how the game works?

I agree with this actually. You might be able to wiggle and call it a WAAC player though if their opponent disagreed and then offered to 4+ it, but the other player still refused to change their stance without giving a proper explanation (unlike Peregrine here).

IMHO, WAAC is covers a few categories, all in the name of winning: unsportsmanlike and selfish conduct, uber-competitive lists in any sort of atmosphere (eg, casual, friendly setting), cheating, ignoring RAI on grey areas when it's in their favour and without consulting their opponent ("well the Pyrovore was clearly intended to hit every model on the board!"), etc. The important thing is that they are someone who focuses so much on winning that they aren't any fun to play against.

EDIT: Oh and I should also add that if they start losing they get really angry about it and generally start to whine, annoying their opponent or making them feel bad for being in a better position.

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more. Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

It doesn't matter if one agrees with this or not, my point is that (in my opinion) WAAC is also a term that covers a person who reads rules for anything they can exploit for an advantage their opponent isn't prepared for.

Just because somebody argues something, doesn't mean they play it that way.

Prior to 7th edition, I would've argued against eye-less models trying to draw LOS. Doesn't mean I would play it that way.

As an aside, this brings up something that still bothers me when playing Warmachine - WM/H has no real concept of "RAI", if the rule says you can do X, then you can do X. My mind is clouded by the 40k nomenclature because some tricks/combos in WM/H feels like they would be called "WAAC", "beardy" or outright cheating in 40k because they seem to use dubious interpretations of the rules, but that is not the case. The closest thing to WAAC in WM/H would be some kind of cheating involving premeasuring, like knowing the distance to a particular terrain piece and using that to get an unfair advantage.

I think that "WAAC" is more prevalent in 40k due to the rules style and the fact that the rules aren't clear, so you have RAI vs. RAW debates constantly and it's easy to be labeled a WAAC player (or TFG, etc.) for certain rules interpretations. That doesn't happen in most other games because the rules are clear.

 Ailaros wrote:
Here's mine:

For this group of players, success is a binary state, and that success is determined by exactly one thing - winning. The point of the game, possibly the ONLY point of the game is to win it. It is easy for the other player groups to revile this group because it produces behavior antithetical to their way of playing, but such behavior is perfectly congruent with the way the game is supposed to be played for these players. They will rules lawyer to advantage because it can help them win, and if you aren't able to argue well enough why my interpretation of the rules is wrong, then you SHOULD lose. Likewise, if I bring the strongest list in the game, and you don't, you should lose more often, and complaining about my list is just a cover-up for the fact that you brought a weaker list.

Winners have a strange relationship with dice - they don't want the game to be based on the luck of the dice, because they don't want to lose just because someone got lucky (or they got unlucky), but at the same time want to be able to come back from behind with a little luck if it means they can pull out a win. Also, this group doesn't want there to be serious game balance. Part of the fun is to come up with stronger and stronger combinations of units to give them that edge. If every army were roughly as powerful, then you wouldn't get to use your peak brainpower to come up with secret combinations that others didn't know about that would allow you to crush your opponents. List building is a skill, after all, and not everyone is as skilled as others.

It is, in a way, the purest, most black and white way to look at the game. People's complaints about pretty much anything tend to be irrelevant. Who cares if I use a spam list if it gets me the win? Why are you letting fluff get in the way of you winning? I'll take the victory, but I'll also likely think less of you for not being as clever as me, or not "wanting" it as much.

And a comparison to other types.

I agree with this 100%. Especially the issue with dice - you'll have these guys who bitch and complain about poor rolls, but it's not as if they acknowledge the times that they make 15 5+ saves in a row.

If 7th edition has done anything right, it's giving this type of player more frowny faces.

Loopholes that are not actually intended by the writers exist and WAAC players will exploit them. it happens. Just dont play those people.
Again, WAAC is self explanatory.

Didnt we go through this like a month ago?

a WAAC is one who is willing to WIN AT ALL COST

All Costs

Meaning a WAAC will not be above losing his own life to win a game
simple as that so can we move on?

I don't consider cheating as WAAC, because who wins by cheating is a insufferable bastard, not an over-competitive player.

A WAAC player is someone who will try to bend every aspect of the rules to his benefit, but still inside the rules. Murky rules are WAAC treasures, and he'll argue about them to exhaustion until getting his side of the argument.

There is a vast difference between wanting to win, and winning at all costs. Face it, this game has winners and losers and some of the hardest opponents I know are excellent guys to play against. They bring the pain but the are not WAACos.

A WAAC player might try other things to win, being it bending rules or other nonsense. They won't let you redo an error but want you to let them take a move back. They might not correct you if you are playing a rule slightly wrong so long as it benefits them. They might distract you outside of the game, making snide comments or just being annoying. To them its a mental battle as well as a physical one.

At least that's my view anyway.

I admit, I can get rather angry when playing this game. It happens. But I really only become a bad sport when the dice are against me at every turn, and I'm just getting destroyed with no hope of doing anything back. That rarely happens. But sure, if you wanna consider me a WAAC player, go ahead. I've lost a good number of games, some of which I went down fighting, and just barely lost, but both of us had a great time doing so.

However, I will outright refuse a game that I know I have little chance of ever winning. For example, I have a Grey Knight friend that wanted to play me. I brought my Tyranids. He uses a big blob of Paladins with 2 Dreadknights. I refuse to play against that, mainly because there's little I would be able to do to it. am I WAAC? Meh, you tell me. All in all, I just don't like feeling as if I don't have a chance, whether it's from the start or later during the game.

I would really, REALLY, REEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAALLLY love it if the community just stopped using these terms completely. TFG and WAAC. I hate these terms. They're stupid tags with no real definition.

Whenever I see either used I just read it as "something I don't like and instead of articulating it I'll just put a demeaning label on it."

These sorts of terms do not make the community a better place. There is sufficient words in the English language that we can describe things properly instead of using ill-defined terms that are rarely used beyond a thinly veiled insult.

To me it is a combination of factors and they don't necessarily all have to be present, they aren't all necessarily bad and for some whether they are bad or not depends on the context.

1. Out right cheating by moving extra distance, fixing dice rolls, picking up failed rolls before the opponent can see they are failures, etc.

2. Interpreting any ambiguity in your favor and against your opponent and not being consistent in this. i.e. treating a rule or principle one way one moment then flipping it the next.

2a. Hiding the ball on your unorthdox or commonly misunderstood interpretation. For example seeing your opponent doing A to accomplish B when by your interpretation of the rule he can't accomplish B. You let him do A then say too bad you can't accomplish B because of how I interpet the rule.

3. Always looking for/using the most powerful list, army, combo available and only using the current power build and using it in every situation even those where it is not appropriate. Example: 10 year vet using the latest power list in a pickup game against a new player.

4. Unable to enjoy the randomness of the game and losses.

5. Having no flexibility with how you treat your opponent and his actions. Example: he starts to move a model, changes his mind and decides to leave it stationary. The model is where it started, he gained no advantage by the partial movement (such as learning that the move would hide the model) and you insist on treating the model as having moved. Just let it go. It doesn't matter. Be sporting.

6. Not telling your opponent you are a WAAC player ahead of time. If you only want to use the most competitive list you can and every game you play is either a competition or preparation for a competition, tell your opponent. They can either decide that isn't the sort of game they want to play, or they can bring an appropriate army and mindset. If you hide that though and they bring a "fun" list that you subsequently smash with your tournament list, you are neither a great player nor a decent human being, and you are a coward because you didn't risk playing against their A game/list. There is nothing wrong with being uber competitive, just let people know so they can respond appropriately.

This list isn't complete, but hits the major themes. I'm not saying that everything on this list is wrong to do especially in the right context, but if the more of these that apply to a player and the more rigid he is on having them apply to him all the time, the more likely it is that he is a WAAC player.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
To me it is a combination of factors and they don't necessarily all have to be present, they aren't all necessarily bad and for some whether they are bad or not depends on the context.

1. Out right cheating by moving extra distance, fixing dice rolls, picking up failed rolls before the opponent can see they are failures, etc.

2. Interpreting any ambiguity in your favor and against your opponent and not being consistent in this. i.e. treating a rule or principle one way one moment then flipping it the next.

2a. Hiding the ball on your unorthdox or commonly misunderstood interpretation. For example seeing your opponent doing A to accomplish B when by your interpretation of the rule he can't accomplish B. You let him do A then say too bad you can't accomplish B because of how I interpet the rule.

3. Always looking for/using the most powerful list, army, combo available and only using the current power build and using it in every situation even those where it is not appropriate. Example: 10 year vet using the latest power list in a pickup game against a new player.

4. Unable to enjoy the randomness of the game and losses.

5. Having no flexibility with how you treat your opponent and his actions. Example: he starts to move a model, changes his mind and decides to leave it stationary. The model is where it started, he gained no advantage by the partial movement (such as learning that the move would hide the model) and you insist on treating the model as having moved. Just let it go. It doesn't matter. Be sporting.

6. Not telling your opponent you are a WAAC player ahead of time. If you only want to use the most competitive list you can and every game you play is either a competition or preparation for a competition, tell your opponent. They can either decide that isn't the sort of game they want to play, or they can bring an appropriate army and mindset. If you hide that though and they bring a "fun" list that you subsequently smash with your tournament list, you are neither a great player nor a decent human being, and you are a coward because you didn't risk playing against their A game/list. There is nothing wrong with being uber competitive, just let people know so they can respond appropriately.

This list isn't complete, but hits the major themes. I'm not saying that everything on this list is wrong to do especially in the right context, but if the more of these that apply to a player and the more rigid he is on having them apply to him all the time, the more likely it is that he is a WAAC player.

This being said, I feel a bit more comfortable about myself. I can rest easy. >.<

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
To me, WAAC is when people argued that RAW, their Razorback could fire the Quadgun, because the Quadgun rules mentions models in base contact and nothing more.

Do you also consider it WAAC to roll a 3+ armor save for your tactical marine when hit by a lasgun? Because that's the same level of rule "ambiguity" that there was with vehicles firing gun emplacements before the rules were changed. And it's very easy to explain fluff-wise: the driver gets out of the vehicle and fires the gun, the gun has a remote control system that the vehicle is using, etc.

Or how people argued (when SM got their new dex and grav guns) that grav guns ignored cover on vehicles, because they weren't rolling to wound or to pen rolls, they were rolling for effect and thus never qualified for taking cover saves.

That's not WAAC, it's just GW failing to write functioning rules. Remember that there is a clear precedent for "weird" effects not granting cover saves: markerlights. And it uses the exact same "it's not a wound or glance/pen, therefore no saves" argument. So why is one WAAC and the other is just how the game works?

This is clearly a case of getting stuck in minor details and missing the point.
If GW could write clear rules, YMDC wouldn't exist. My point was, that in my opinion, WAAC players also covers persons who seek out exploitive areas. Like people who modeled their bastion with all the heavy bolters facing 1 way to fire them all at the same time, it couldn't qualify as modeling for advantage because the building was same height, had correct numbers of fire points and acces point and was qualified as medium-sized building.
As I mentioned in the former post, it wasn't at all relevant if you agreed with the provided examples or not, they where just used as examples for people who argued rules in their favor, without informing you before hand, and use it against you to gain an advantage. Like, you think your Wave Serpent is golden behind a fortification, getting 2+ cover due to wargear and suddenly you realize that, even though only a fraction of the wave serpent's body is visible, it's a sitting duck against the centurion because you'd think that a weapon that rolls to wound 99% of the time (which you normally get cover for, so it's totally logical to assume that would be the case with vehicles, hence the reason why you'd NEVER assume for it to be like a marker light), would qualify as something that could be taken cover against, otherwise you'd never move the wave serpent near that unit and that mistake was only made by you, because you where never informed that there was an exploitive way to use the weapon.
You seem to be under the impression that I somehow begrudge people who use the Quadgun with the Razorback and that I would deny my opponent using it in such a manor. If you're so offended with the example of the Quadgun then how about the classic Skyshield conga line of conscripts getting 4++ 30" away due to horrible rule writing, forcing your opponent to pour trice the amount of firepower to kill a unit, because the first time your opponent shot at the unit he just assumed they had no save, until you lift your shoulders and "hey man, that's GW for you! Not my fault, that's GW's fail rules, that doesn't make me a WAAC".