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.

As this thread demonstrates, no, we cannot.

That's what I thought.

Witch hunt !

 Zewrath wrote:
This is clearly a case of getting stuck in minor details and missing the point.

No, I got your point, it was just a bad point. Based on those examples you provided your definition of WAAC seems to be "someone who favors a rule interpretation that I don't agree with". Those aren't clear cases of RAI vs. RAW like the old eyeless models "issue", they were perfectly legitimate interpretations that followed RAW and made sense RAI.

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.

The problem here is the expectation that 40k's rules work like the "real" situation, rather than being an abstraction. Your assumption that the tank gets a 2+ cover save is no different than assuming that the tank gets a 2+ cover save against markerlights, or that a Rhino that is 99.9999999999999% obscured behind a wall should get more than the same 5+ cover save it gets for being 25% obscured. Playing by the rules instead of what "should" happen doesn't make you WAAC.

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"

So now your definition of WAAC is "someone who uses a tactic that I think is too powerful"? There's no rules lawyering here, the unit indisputably gets a 4++ and the fact that you assumed that it doesn't just means you made a mistake. It doesn't mean that the other player is WAAC for claiming the save they're entitled to.

 Portugal Jones wrote:
As this thread demonstrates, no, we cannot.

Even if a clear definition was adapted under threat of ban people would just find a new derogatory term for it (we'd see TFG thrown around instead probably).

Yes, people will rationalize and make excuses for their behavior endlessly so it is best to not even try to address it seriously because it always ends up in nothing more than a flame fest. The WAAC players know who they are and you will find them to be the most vocal in rationalizing and those who are the ones most anxious to excuse their losses of games will be the most vocal in crying WAAC. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

A WAAC player is anyone who fails to abide by DBAD.

Useless term thrown around this forum usualy to describe people that dare to have ambition or treat this whole affair as an actual game not their pewpew fantasies vehicle.

But yes I have an example of something close. Guy is always "laid back" if its the game he has not yet comprehend but if he is actualy good then he gets all pffffft when you make a tiniest mistake. Or how if you forget anything even if its obvious that you would do it (example move a support drone in the right marine`s turn in Level 7, it sits there left out supporting noone but hey you didnt do it at the right moment, its a no). Or is it a TFG? Or a douchebag? Not sure got lost.

Lets try to define HAAC though. Its irrelevant because he painted it all. Every rule is ok because you can roll it . Balance is great because only a douche and a nazi dares to bring good units like Adolf sending Panthers instead of marks III everywhere. Its all about pre game discussion. Etc.

WAAC is a descriptive term. You cannot get a clear-cut definition of a descriptive term.

In general, it refers to players who do everything to win, including willfully ruining the fun for their opponent(s).

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Useless term thrown around this forum usually to describe people that dare to have ambition or treat this whole affair as an actual game not their pewpew fantasies vehicle.

I think that's pretty much it.

This.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mYuF3T7s7XY

Hoihoi

But how do you define a term like sportsmanship? It's largely subjective, ones man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc

Yeah. How do you define a term like "LEGAL", one man's legal is another man's death sentence... you know.

How about moral ?

Yeah.. thought so too.

How about donkey-cave or being a dick ?

Well... "legal" you can define... because it's what is, ya know, permitted by law... that's kind of the definition of "legal"

Moral has a definition... what IS moral is debatable. But the actual term has a definition.

"Dick" also has a definition, what makes someone a dick is debatable.

WAAC, however, has no definition, as what the self-evident definition might be is actually not what most people take it to mean. It is entirely useless terminology.

...I'm lost as to what this thread's purpose was supposed to be then.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Well... "legal" you can define... because it's what is, ya know, permitted by law... that's kind of the definition of "legal"

Moral has a definition... what IS moral is debatable. But the actual term has a definition.

"Dick" also has a definition, what makes someone a dick is debatable.

WAAC, however, has no definition, as what the self-evident definition might be is actually not what most people take it to mean. It is entirely useless terminology.

I'm fine with that too.
@ignored_guy the purpose of this thread is to either get a definition of WAAC or prove that it's a meaningless acronym for witch hunting purposes.
So far, there is no definition.

@socially_insecure_guy: WAAC isn't meaningless as a term, in the contrary, it perfectly fits its use. Not giving you a lecture about how language works, but in short, there are prescriptive and descriptive terms. The former can be clearly defined whereas the latter cannot as they merely describe a matter and can therefore be far more different.

The term would be meaningless if it did not describe anything or if what is described cannot be described at all. WAAC players, however, can be identified by a few traits, as demonstrated in this very thread.

You were looking for affirmation for your very own view of it...which...basically is what you are looking for in each and every thread of yours. Sad.

Competitive types seek competition, which requires a level playing field. Hence they will refrain from abusing using well-known "good/powerful" Codexes or units, from spamming units, from using Forge World stuff, exploit rule-loop holes, and similar things, all of which would skew the competition in the first place (and thus make the victory meaningless, competitively speaking).

WAAC seeks the gratification of winning for whatever reason, so they will happily field abusive lists, knowingly too-good-to-be-true Codexes and/or units, often spamming them, Forge World stuff, exploit quirky RAW-issues and all these other unsporty things that give them an edge, even if it means that the resulting victory is won due to flaws in the game, rather than the players own skill, though most WAAC-players will still claim a victory was "theirs".

 Sigvatr wrote:
@socially_insecure_guy: WAAC isn't meaningless as a term, in the contrary, it perfectly fits its use. Not giving you a lecture about how language works, but in short, there are prescriptive and descriptive terms. The former can be clearly defined whereas the latter cannot as they merely describe a matter and can therefore be far more different.

The term would be meaningless if it did not describe anything or if what is described cannot be described at all. WAAC players, however, can be identified by a few traits, as demonstrated in this very thread.

You were looking for affirmation for your very own view of it...which...basically is what you are looking for in each and every thread of yours. Sad.

The reason I think it's a meaningless term is because it takes on whatever meaning the writer ascribes to it... which you don't know unless they explain it... which makes the term itself meaningless because if you have to explain a term whenever you use it, it's meaningless

It can't literally mean what it says... Win... at... all... costs. It's a figurative term that just means whatever the hell the writer wants, it's more often than not used in a derogatory sense (as "at all costs" is usually meant to imply costs that normal people wouldn't see fit, as it can't literally mean ALL costs).

The term in and of itself is black and white, but it is used to describe many shades of grey.

In summary: I hate it and I wish the community would get over it's fascination with this stupid meaningless acronym and just stick to using common english words in their literal meaning to describe what they want to describe.

 Sigvatr wrote:
...I'm lost as to what this thread's purpose was supposed to be then.

The problem is that the base question is like trying to define how spicy a dish is. It's all subjective.

I like hot food, and enjoy eating things that make me a little red in the face and sweaty. I've got a friend who due to her cultural background, and having nothing but brothers, could probably eat bhut jolokia as a snack food. My sister can't stand anything with even a little burn in it. Ask all three of us what we consider a 'spicy' food, and you're going to get very different answers.

morgoth wrote:
Yeah. How do you define a term like "LEGAL", one man's legal is another man's death sentence... you know.

How about moral ?

Yeah.. thought so too.

How about donkey-cave or being a dick ?

Morgoth?

What would be a more fitting, standard English term then?

I like the term because it's short and easy to understand, even for people not familiar with 40k and its terminology.

More general terms like "bad sportsman" are too broad in my eyes as there are more reasons for someone being a bad sportsman than there are for someone being a WAAC player.

There is no singular term or phrase that replaces WAAC because WAAC doesn't have a singular meaning, it means different things to different people.

It could mean bad sportsman who only wanted to win, so say bad sportsman who only wanted to win. It could mean excessively competitive, so say excessively competitive. It could mean cheating to win, so say cheating to win. It could mean rules lawyering, so say rules lawyering. It could mean precise and unforgiving, so say precise and unforgiving.

WAAC cannot literally mean WAAC because no one is insane enough to want to literally want to win at ALL costs. Realistically it just gets used figuratively to mean "costs above what I think are reasonable" or "costs above this imaginary line I made", and that varies from one person to the next.

It might be more convenient to shorten proper descriptions to an acronym like "WAAC" but that's only a good idea when that acronym is actually a well defined term, which WAAC is not. It's especially stupid because WAAC is more often used as a negative or derogatory term where instead of engaging in proper discussion people just wave it off as "sure, if you're just a WAAC player", "it's only a problem if you're WAAC", "he was just a WAAC dick".

Yes, if people can't articulate what they mean, I'd rather they say nothing at all than use terms like WAAC.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Competitive types seek competition, which requires a level playing field. Hence they will refrain from abusing using well-known "good/powerful" Codexes or units, from spamming units, from using Forge World stuff, exploit rule-loop holes, and similar things, all of which would skew the competition in the first place (and thus make the victory meaningless, competitively speaking).

WAAC seeks the gratification of winning for whatever reason, so they will happily field abusive lists, knowingly too-good-to-be-true Codexes and/or units, often spamming them, Forge World stuff, exploit quirky RAW-issues and all these other unsporty things that give them an edge, even if it means that the resulting victory is won due to flaws in the game, rather than the players own skill, though most WAAC-players will still claim a victory was "theirs".

Wrong.
List building is part of competition.
If you compete with inferior lists you're not really competing.
Rules and loopholes abuse is an entirely different story.

I don't think you can be a competitive player and play blood angels or footdar right now.

It's good for trolling / humiliating an opponent in a competitive setup though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Yes, if people can't articulate what they mean, I'd rather they say nothing at all than use terms like WAAC.

What dakka forum users do not immediately get an idea of a player and how he might act if labeled with WAAC?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
This is clearly a case of getting stuck in minor details and missing the point.

No, I got your point, it was just a bad point. Based on those examples you provided your definition of WAAC seems to be "someone who favors a rule interpretation that I don't agree with". Those aren't clear cases of RAI vs. RAW like the old eyeless models "issue", they were perfectly legitimate interpretations that followed RAW and made sense RAI.

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.

The problem here is the expectation that 40k's rules work like the "real" situation, rather than being an abstraction. Your assumption that the tank gets a 2+ cover save is no different than assuming that the tank gets a 2+ cover save against markerlights, or that a Rhino that is 99.9999999999999% obscured behind a wall should get more than the same 5+ cover save it gets for being 25% obscured. Playing by the rules instead of what "should" happen doesn't make you WAAC.

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"

So now your definition of WAAC is "someone who uses a tactic that I think is too powerful"? There's no rules lawyering here, the unit indisputably gets a 4++ and the fact that you assumed that it doesn't just means you made a mistake. It doesn't mean that the other player is WAAC for claiming the save they're entitled to.

Not really, they illustrated my point and I said it didn't matter what anyone thought about it, because it was just an example of often discussed things. Again, you seem rather assumptious about what I agree with and what I don't. I never said anything about the skypad being too powerful based on my subjective view, I said that there's a clear RAI that is being exploited due to poor RAW and people who expect (like any rational person does the first time they encounter it) that it wouldn't work that that is in for a bad experience.
And when the actual feth did I ever mention anything about 40k working like anything but in an abstract form? Terminators get cover behind the wall, the rhino, even more obscured suddenly doesn't, this doesn't have anything to do with being marker lights or "thinking abstract", it was a horrible RAW failure that resulted in exploited use. The fact that you don't act like a sport an give the cover save anyway is because you're using glitched RAW to gain an advantage and want to "win at all cost". This example seems rather crystal clear to me and I don't see why the hell you'd even bother to split quote my posts, unless you somehow feel that I'm begrudging you for using said examples above me or something similar, in which case; I could care less.

 Zewrath wrote:
I never said anything about the skypad being too powerful based on my subjective view, I said that there's a clear RAI that is being exploited due to poor RAW and people who expect (like any rational person does the first time they encounter it) that it wouldn't work that that is in for a bad experience.

You're right, there's clear RAI, and it's exactly what RAW says: units on the pad get the save, not models. The only reason to even question this is if you assume that it's too powerful or "unrealistic" and therefore the rules must somehow be meant to do something different. And that's no different than assuming that RAI must be that tactical marines have a 2+ armor save because it isn't fluffy that they die so easily.

Also, if you expect that the unit wouldn't get a 4++ then you suck at 40k and have only yourself to blame. There's nothing in the rules that even comes close to supporting that expectation, so you don't get to blame your opponent and throw around WAAC labels just because you made a mistake about how the rules work.

And when the actual feth did I ever mention anything about 40k working like anything but in an abstract form? Terminators get cover behind the wall, the rhino, even more obscured suddenly doesn't, this doesn't have anything to do with being marker lights or "thinking abstract", it was a horrible RAW failure that resulted in exploited use. The fact that you don't act like a sport an give the cover save anyway is because you're using glitched RAW to gain an advantage and want to "win at all cost".

Again, this is not exploiting RAW. GW set a perfectly clear precedent with markerlights that saves only apply to wounds and glancing/penetrating hits, not to anything else. Weapons that do not inflict wounds or glancing/penetrating hits do not allow saves, even if they cause an effect that the target's owner wants to avoid. Grav weapons just followed this clear precedent because, like markerlights, they do not inflict glancing or penetrating hits on vehicles. Should GW have published a different rule? Sure, you could argue that. But it isn't rules lawyering or WAAC behavior to play a rule according to what GW published instead of what we wish the rule was.

 Peregrine wrote:

Based on those examples you provided your definition of WAAC seems to be "someone who favors a rule interpretation that I don't agree with".

And here lies the entire problem with the WAAC tag. It's entirely subjective, based on how violated someone feels, reguardless of the actual merit of the perceived infraction.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
I never said anything about the skypad being too powerful based on my subjective view, I said that there's a clear RAI that is being exploited due to poor RAW and people who expect (like any rational person does the first time they encounter it) that it wouldn't work that that is in for a bad experience.

You're right, there's clear RAI, and it's exactly what RAW says: units on the pad get the save, not models. The only reason to even question this is if you assume that it's too powerful or "unrealistic" and therefore the rules must somehow be meant to do something different. And that's no different than assuming that RAI must be that tactical marines have a 2+ armor save because it isn't fluffy that they die so easily.

Also, if you expect that the unit wouldn't get a 4++ then you suck at 40k and have only yourself to blame. There's nothing in the rules that even comes close to supporting that expectation, so you don't get to blame your opponent and throw around WAAC labels just because you made a mistake about how the rules work.

And when the actual feth did I ever mention anything about 40k working like anything but in an abstract form? Terminators get cover behind the wall, the rhino, even more obscured suddenly doesn't, this doesn't have anything to do with being marker lights or "thinking abstract", it was a horrible RAW failure that resulted in exploited use. The fact that you don't act like a sport an give the cover save anyway is because you're using glitched RAW to gain an advantage and want to "win at all cost".

Again, this is not exploiting RAW. GW set a perfectly clear precedent with markerlights that saves only apply to wounds and glancing/penetrating hits, not to anything else. Weapons that do not inflict wounds or glancing/penetrating hits do not allow saves, even if they cause an effect that the target's owner wants to avoid. Grav weapons just followed this clear precedent because, like markerlights, they do not inflict glancing or penetrating hits on vehicles. Should GW have published a different rule? Sure, you could argue that. But it isn't rules lawyering or WAAC behavior to play a rule according to what GW published instead of what we wish the rule was.

Never played vs the skypad, other than vs a static army that never moved, so never had that problem or expectation. I vastly disagree with your RAI example, your example is better suited with if somebody claimed that Dorn's Arrow is a storm bolter and thus qualified for a reroll (Bolter Drill) due to fluff saying it's a storm bolter.
Peregrine, if we must continue this conversation may I ask what your purpose is? I said I just provided examples of incidents with exploits to illustrate my point, when you're saying that you understand my point, is there any reason to correct my posts in, pardon me, a rather rude and condescending way?

 Zewrath wrote:
Peregrine, if we must continue this conversation may I ask what your purpose is? I said I just provided examples of incidents with exploits to illustrate my point, when you're saying that you understand my point, is there any reason to correct my posts in, pardon me, a rather rude and condescending way?

My purpose is to point out that your point is a terrible one. I understand it, and it sucks. You're applying the WAAC label to people because they disagree with your rule interpretations, not because they're actually rules lawyering or abusing RAW vs. RAI. All of the situations you've mentioned have been either clear RAW and RAI with no room for argument, or clear RAW and a reasonable argument that RAI is RAW. Your only argument here is your perception that playing by RAW in those cases is "unfair", and you have nothing to support it besides your own feelings. So it is completely inappropriate to call someone WAAC for doing so.

 Sigvatr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Yes, if people can't articulate what they mean, I'd rather they say nothing at all than use terms like WAAC.

What dakka forum users do not immediately get an idea of a player and how he might act if labeled with WAAC?

What do you mean? You "get an idea", yeah ok, you get an idea that it's a player that wanted to win more than the player who is ascribing the term... but beyond that you don't know what they mean without them explaining what they mean. Look at this very thread and there's people bickering over what is and isn't WAAC, since the term doesn't even have a dictionary definition (well, it does, but that definition can't be taken literally because it would be fething stupid) and different people take it to mean different things.

It could be over competitive, it could be bad sportsman, it could be cheating, it could be that he pulled out a gun and shot the other player rather than lose... you don't know because the term in and of itself is meaningless and more often than not a slur used to avoid discussion instead of address discussion.

I hate both those things... meaningless terms and terms that are used as dismissive slurs.

it has nothing to do with being a good player or army lists or being the one who wins or whatnot. Those who claim it is are usually just covering for the fact that they are one themselves.
Itactually covers the attitude of the player themselves. If someone scrutinizes and reads the rulebook looking for exploitable loopholes and acts like a jerk, for example touching your models without permission, getting food on the playing table, spilling pop on it, cusses nonstop and whines or leaves the game to talk on the cell phone for a half hour at a time ect and so forth, they fall into that catagory. It is all about the attitude and not nothing to do with the actual lists and playing skill.

 EVIL INC wrote:
If someone scrutinizes and reads the rulebook looking for exploitable loopholes

See I've never actually seen a problem with this. We play a game, the game has rules, I've never seen a problem with scrutinising those rules to win the game. I blame the rules writers for leaving loopholes, not the players that play the loopholes. Even arguing RAW vs RAI is a bit silly to me as the rules are an abstraction, knowing what was intended vs what was written is entirely subjective. It's only when the rules are contradictory or vague and you have to start guessing at what was intended.

It is annoying when you're surprised mid game by an interpretation you aren't familiar with... but again, GW's fault for writing rules with so many fething flaws that they let that happen. It can even happen between 2 players who don't give a feth about winning, sometimes you just meet someone who interprets a rule differently to you and it's vague enough that it could go either way and hopefully your game doesn't hinge on it.

Most of the other stuff you said just comes down to being obnoxious, not sure how it relates to "winning" at all so I don't see how it can be considered WAAC.