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.

The rules writers are ultimately responsible for that. However, only a total blank (insert expletive) would go to the trouble of scrutinizing those rules to search for exploitable loopholes that were never intended and only the same blank would use those loopholes to justify it. An example is using tanks to fire emplacement weapons. However, those are raw so there is nothing we can do about it except accept that there are those sorts of players. However, those are also the same players who will also cheat. You know, the magically telescoping tape measure where a 6 inch movement turns into 8 when you measure it yourself or those who will pick up a model to check out your paint job and then "accidentally" put it back down in a different position on the table this time out of range. Some will claim that these are two different sets of people but we all know it isnt.They are also the ones I mentioned in terms of dropping food on the table and so on. You will notice that there are a few protesting a little TOO much. I would hazard a guess at a guilty conscience. But thats just WAAC, as I said, it is a general attitude. ALL in that phrase including honesty and fair play. You'll have it and you'll have them on online forums. Thats why these threads always devolve into flame fests that eventually get closed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Fair enough I see where you're coming from but I do need to point out that I'm not disagreeing with the said rule interpretations; I find them stupid, pretty important difference.

Exactly it is an important difference. The person s technically working within the rules. It is the act of searching and scrutinizing the rules for possible exploits to sneak in on others. A decent person will discuss such things with an opponent before the game.
Again it comes down to the ATTITUDE of the player.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The rules writers are ultimately responsible for that. However, only a total blank (insert expletive) would go to the trouble of scrutinizing those rules to search for exploitable loopholes that were never intended and only the same blank would use those loopholes to justify it. An example is using tanks to fire emplacement weapons. However, those are raw so there is nothing we can do about it except accept that there are those sorts of players. However, those are also the same players who will also cheat. You know, the magically telescoping tape measure where a 6 inch movement turns into 8 when you measure it yourself or those who will pick up a model to check out your paint job and then "accidentally" put it back down in a different position on the table this time out of range. Some will claim that these are two different sets of people but we all know it isnt.They are also the ones I mentioned in terms of dropping food on the table and so on. You will notice that there are a few protesting a little TOO much. I would hazard a guess at a guilty conscience. But thats just WAAC, as I said, it is a general attitude. ALL in that phrase including honesty and fair play. You'll have it and you'll have them on online forums. Thats why these threads always devolve into flame fests that eventually get closed.

I do think you're stretching a bit with over generalisation.

I have at times used things people might consider not "RAI" or rules lawyering to get an advantage. Funnily enough when it comes up in games you can get the person who goes "oh, huh, I didn't realise that's how the rule was written, ok" and then other people who kick up a stink complaining about how they don't think that's what was intended and how it's a dirty move of me to do that and whatever. Usually against those sorts of annoying people I just say whatever and play it how they want to avoid stupid arguments.

As I said before, it a game, it has rules, I play by those rules unless we agree to change the rules (which I'm also happy to do, but up until we do I assume we are playing RAW and RAI is entirely subjective).

I do however not cheat and I don't touch other peoples' models and I don't like other people touching my models. I'm not loud or obnoxious or any of the other things you describe. I simply play to win and play by the rules... to some people apparently that's still WAAC

But whatever, play how you want to play... our exchange is just proving to me the idiocy of the term "WAAC".

it's really simple. if you've done something that is game-legal but not supported by the fluff, and you've done that because you want to win the game rather than play a fluffy narrative style thing, then that's probably WAAC. if you attempt to cheat, twist the rules, bully your opponent then you're a WAAC type.
if the two are combined then you're definitely a WAAC type.

if you're arguing that these things are ok, you're a WAAC type.

is being WAAC actually a bad thing though? after all, each of us play the hobby in a different way? i'm think that WAAC is a bit sad, but unless a person is cheating or being a dill weed then no worries.

 daddyorchips wrote:
it's really simple. if you've done something that is game-legal but not supported by the fluff, and you've done that because you want to win the game rather than play a fluffy narrative style thing, then that's probably WAAC. if you attempt to cheat, twist the rules, bully your opponent then you're a WAAC type.
if the two are combined then you're definitely a WAAC type.

if you're arguing that these things are ok, you're a WAAC type.

is being WAAC actually a bad thing though? after all, each of us play the hobby in a different way? i'm think that WAAC is a bit sad, but unless a person is cheating or being a dill weed then no worries.

If that's your definition of WAAC then it's a terrible one.

But on the upside it proves my earlier point....

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

I was pretty accurate in my description. of course, there will be the rare exception and in online forums, everyone will of course claim to be that exception. Mainly because of the facelessness of the internet. All costs means ALL costs. All includes decency and honesty. If the term does not apply to you then it does not apply. If it does, chances are it will be denied because no one wants to be called out on their behavior. This is why you need only look to see who denies it the most to see who it applies to.

It is true the rules are the rules. However, as we have seen, some are questionable and are obviously oversights or errors that have yet to be fixed. It is not hard to discuss such things with an opponent before a game. A game of 40k is a social event among other things and as such means you should not be trying to pull one over on the opponent. For example, waiting for an opponent to look away during deployment and then hiding a commander inside a piece of terraign or taking a big commander with upgrades, retinue and so on and so forth but not using it as your army commander while letting your opponent assume it is while actually using a lesserlowly commander as the army commander because you know the opponent will go after the big guy think9ng it is it. Then after the game informing them they did not get kill the warlord. Those are technically within the rules but still not something a non waac player would do.
Once again it is the attitude of the player. A WAAC player knows who they are because the term is self explanitory. There is no need to define it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Once again it is the attitude of the player. A WAAC player knows who they are because the term is self explanitory. There is no need to define it.

This makes no sense to me.

Win at all costs is self explanatory... but no part of win at all costs refers specifically to attitude. That's the cost YOU are assigning to it.

There is no such thing as a literal win at all costs player, because everyone has costs they aren't willing to pay in order to win. That is exactly why the term needs defining, it can't be taken to mean it's literal meaning because it's literal meaning is insane, it's literal meaning is black and white.

It never means at ALL costs, it just means whatever costs the writer ascribes. As I said on the previous page, 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 (or more accurately has a very specific meaning that is absurd) and more often than not it is a slur used to avoid discussion instead of address discussion.

Ironically it's mostly used as a slur against other players but whenever someone uses the term WAAC it makes me think less of the user than the player to whom it's meant to refer.

If you take it's literal meaning then no one is WAAC, except maybe the most crazed sociopath who played one game and killed his opponent and is now in jail.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't address the rest of your post. Again I think you're making sweeping generalisations and just putting things in to the box you understand and feel is acceptable and outside that box is "WAAC"... again, the term is just taking on the meaning you want to give it, not some inherent definition it actually has.

Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

Indeed, that's what this thread stinks of to me as well. Though it's been kind of fun watching all the fighting. Like watching people debate what the color maroon smells like.

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

I think it's because Morgoth also insists that he can Jink blasts that scatters on top of his Serpent, even though said Serpent isn't eligible for Jink.

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Somebody busting your balls for spamming Serpents, eh morgoth?

Nah, this was for someone else.

For the Serpent Spam, I tend to get more TFG than WAAC

It's all down to context.

If you use Serpent spam in a tournament, all is well.

If you tried to use it against my CSM army (which is balanced like a CSM army you'd expect to see in the fluff, not like a min-maxed tournament list) I'd politely decline and suggest that you find a more like-minded opponent.

There are things that are outright nasty no matter the situation, though. Toxic behaviour, cheating, tricking newbies into thinking that BA footlists are fine against necron air force lists. Things like that. That is what distinguishes a TFG.

WAAC is simply defined, they do everything to win. Including not only using the very best lists but also cheating, trying to decieve you, and so on.

 Ashiraya wrote:
It's all down to context.

If you use Serpent spam in a tournament, all is well.

If you tried to use it against my CSM army (which is balanced like a CSM army you'd expect to see in the fluff, not like a min-maxed tournament list) I'd politely decline and suggest that you find a more like-minded opponent.

There are things that are outright nasty no matter the situation, though. Toxic behaviour, cheating, tricking newbies into thinking that BA footlists are fine against necron air force lists. Things like that. That is what distinguishes a TFG.

WAAC is simply defined, they do everything to win. Including not only using the very best lists but also cheating, trying to decieve you, and so on.

I think that's fine.

If you're tired of a build you can't handle or don't want to, you can just politely tell your opponent you'd rather not play against that build.

And that's really all there is to say anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


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.

Testiment being this thread, most of the time, people who do complain about the label are WAAC players

In general, WAAC means being a bad sportsman by purposefully making the game unfun for your opponent. This includes bringing unfun lists with the sole purpose of stomping other players (and compensating...) and bending / exploiting the rules as far as they can to the border of breaking. It's a descriptive term and most people know what it means or rather get a vague idea of it - which means the term does what it does.

My statements remain true. It is not about army lists and what units you take or about even going by RAW as many of the WAAC players will try to say. Also, of course, when called out on it, they will try to deflect and refuse to take responsibility for their actions. LOL. The rest of us do so why shouldnt they?

It is about the attitude of the player. The attitude of trying to pull one over on someone else by searching for and scrutinizing every rule in order to find a way to twist it in such a way that it is warped beyond recognition. "There is no rule that says I am not allowed to touch your models and smear pizza grease all over them in oder to make you mad enough that you will play innefectively. If there is, cite it for me", "There is no rule that specifically states that I have to tell you which of my two HQ units is my army commander. If there is, cite the rules that specifically spells it out" "there is no rule that specifically says thing tank cant fire an emplacement gun. If there is, cite it". The list goes on and on forever.
It is about the attitude of the player and is spelled out literally in the word itself. Win At ALL Costs. All means all. Dishonesty, cheating, downright lying whatever it takes. Obviously no one wants to be called out on it. This is why these threads always devolve into flame fests without every covering anything. The answer is literally spelled outin the word itself. The key word in it being ALL. THAT is the word that needs to be defined. To me, all means all with no exceptions.

 EVIL INC wrote:
To me, all means all with no exceptions.

Including socially pressuring your opponent into taking a worse army list for "fluff" purposes, thereby securing a victory.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"there is no rule that specifically says thing tank cant fire an emplacement gun. If there is, cite it".

Oh FFS, please stop citing this one as a sign of a WAAC player.

By RAW you could do it, the rule indisputably said "any model", not "any non-vehicle model" or "any infantry model" or anything else that might suggest that vehicles can't fire the gun.

By RAI you could do it, there was nothing in those rules that even came close to suggesting that vehicles firing the guns was an unintended outcome.

By fluff you could do it, as it's trivially easy to imagine the driver getting out and firing the gun while the tank is parked next to it, the commander firing it with a remote link, etc.

The ONLY thing stopping vehicles from using gun emplacements was the fact that certain players decided that it was "unfair" or "cheesy" and insisted on bullying everyone else into accepting their house rule. And their tactics? Constant accusations of rules lawyering, WAAC behavior, etc, against anyone who pointed out that they were just making up. And you're just continuing that shameful tradition by making WAAC mean "someone who doesn't play the game the way I want them to play it".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
For example, waiting for an opponent to look away during deployment and then hiding a commander inside a piece of terraign

That is not even close to WAAC behavior. Part of 40k is being able to look at the table and understand what is going on, if you can't see a model because you didn't bother to look behind the LOS blocking terrain then you aren't paying enough attention and deserve to be surprised by it.

or taking a big commander with upgrades, retinue and so on and so forth but not using it as your army commander while letting your opponent assume it is while actually using a lesserlowly commander as the army commander because you know the opponent will go after the big guy think9ng it is it.

So why didn't you take the few seconds required to say "which character is your warlord"? This isn't WAAC behavior, it's just a clueless player making stupid assumptions instead of asking for clarification and paying the price for it.

[quote=Peregrine 617483 7257943 6e2a7a65b40f1b794057fa352dcb053f.jpg
That is not even close to WAAC behavior. Part of 40k is being able to look at the table and understand what is going on, if you can't see a model because you didn't bother to look behind the LOS blocking terrain then you aren't paying enough attention and deserve to be surprised by it.

morgoth wrote:
I disagree, 40K is meant to be played with everything visible and no fog of war, and a good player will always tell you instead of sneakily trying to have you ignore that unit.

Why am I obligated to say "look at my important unit over here, be sure you're aware of it and think about how you're going to kill it"? It's not my job to make up for your failure to study the situation properly. I'll gladly answer any questions you have about a unit's rules or upgrades, but I'm not going to remind you about what you should be paying attention to or help you make any other strategic choices.

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".

I think this hits the nail on the head for the general image associated with a WAAC player. The key is a desire to win without regard to fair contest and the employment of dubious means because they aren't actually good enough to win on their own merits.

 Sigvatr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


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.

Testiment being this thread, most of the time, people who do complain about the label are WAAC players

Are you just trying to prove my point of WAAC being a stupid term by using it in a sweeping generalisation to disregard people who complain about the label?

If that was intentional, bravo. If it wasn't, then Either way I'm amused.

FWIW, I am complaining that WAAC is a stupid term and I don't consider myself WAAC at all. When I play a game I expect to play by the RAW and I won't give my opponent concessions unless they specifically ask for them, that's about the only random definition of WAAC I seem to fit. Beyond that I endeavour to be a good sportsman.

In general, WAAC means being a bad sportsman by purposefully making the game unfun for your opponent.

See the reason I take umbrage with this term is it so often NOT obvious that's what the person using it means.

It's a descriptive term and most people know what it means or rather get a vague idea of it - which means the term does what it does.

I would say most people don't know what it means, yeah they get a vague idea but IMO that's not good enough. It just makes it a stupid vague term used to make sweeping generalisations, a dismissive slur and is an attempt to avoid discussion instead of promote it.

To me, people using the WAAC label are the conversational equivalent of bad sportsman

IIRC one example that was used previously on this board to explain a loophole a WAAC player would take advantage of was deploying vehicles sideways, then upon moving rotate them so that they gained a extra inch and then moved them.

An example of a perfectly legal, poor rule writing that no one would actually take advantage of unless of course they were reallllly wanting to win; the extra inch isn't the big deal, it's the fact you went to such extents to find the loophole to legally handwave it.

Quickjager wrote:
IIRC one example that was used previously on this board to explain a loophole a WAAC player would take advantage of was deploying vehicles sideways, then upon moving rotate them so that they gained a extra inch and then moved them.

An example of a perfectly legal, poor rule writing that no one would actually take advantage of unless of course they were reallllly wanting to win; the extra inch isn't the big deal, it's the fact you went to such extents to find the loophole to legally handwave it.

That's not a lot of costs there. Just learning the rules as they are.
If you know it works that way and don't use it, you're just limiting yourself and insulting your opponent by giving him freebies.

Does it not bother anyone else that there's even a thing like "RAI" versus "RAW"? The intent of the rules should be clear enough that there's no ambiguity over what you're doing so it has to come up that you aren't playing the game "as intended". That, like so many other arguments about playstyle, seems to be something that only happens in 40k.

In Warmachine if I use Behemoth to Trample and still fire (getting extra movement for the shot, basically) because he has Virtuoso and can make Trample attacks and still shoot, there's no question of whether that's intended or not, because the rules say that's how it works, and so it works. But if something similar existed in 40k (imagine something like being able to do something to get additional movement and still be able to fire a Heavy weapon) it would probably spark a debate over if that's the intent of the rule or someone being a WAAC TFG.

Or a better example: a Spriggan can use Bulldoze to precisely (based on your positioning) push models out of the way, opening up charges to models further back in a unit (like oh, say, an enemy Warcaster). Nobody ever complains that you can turn specifically to push models away from you without pushing them backwards, or that you can use Bulldoze to get the charge bonus when you're closer than 3" (because if you move further than 3" due to Bulldoze, you get the charge bonus when you end). But that same kind of rule in 40k would likely bring up accusations of not playing to the "spirit of the game".

That whole concept, that there's a certain mentality for the game and trying to either follow the rules exactly or thinking the rules are entirely up for interpretation, is one of the weirdest things about a game that I have ever seen. I even recall entire articles in old White Dwarfs talking about the "spirit of the game" and how people who deviated from it were bad people that you probably shouldn't play again if you can avoid it because they are "doing it wrong". Mind boggling.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Does it not bother anyone else that there's even a thing like "RAI" versus "RAW"? The intent of the rules should be clear enough that there's no ambiguity over what you're doing so it has to come up that you aren't playing the game "as intended". That, like so many other arguments about playstyle, seems to be something that only happens in 40k.

In Warmachine if I use Behemoth to Trample and still fire (getting extra movement for the shot, basically) because he has Virtuoso and can make Trample attacks and still shoot, there's no question of whether that's intended or not, because the rules say that's how it works, and so it works. But if something similar existed in 40k (imagine something like being able to do something to get additional movement and still be able to fire a Heavy weapon) it would probably spark a debate over if that's the intent of the rule or someone being a WAAC TFG.

Or a better example: a Spriggan can use Bulldoze to precisely (based on your positioning) push models out of the way, opening up charges to models further back in a unit (like oh, say, an enemy Warcaster). Nobody ever complains that you can turn specifically to push models away from you without pushing them backwards, or that you can use Bulldoze to get the charge bonus when you're closer than 3" (because if you move further than 3" due to Bulldoze, you get the charge bonus when you end). But that same kind of rule in 40k would likely bring up accusations of not playing to the "spirit of the game".

That whole concept, that there's a certain mentality for the game and trying to either follow the rules exactly or thinking the rules are entirely up for interpretation, is one of the weirdest things about a game that I have ever seen. I even recall entire articles in old White Dwarfs talking about the "spirit of the game" and how people who deviated from it were bad people that you probably shouldn't play again if you can avoid it because they are "doing it wrong". Mind boggling.

I think it's that particular perverted mentality that made most serious gamers move to other games or WHFB, leaving 40K the (only) home of the real WAAC TFG crowd (those who so like those acronyms).

The very act of arguing my points prove them. My statements stand as truth. Thank you for the assistance.
In the word WAAC, All is the most important word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification
The word remains self definitive.

This does not mean that it is a word i often use. i have other words for such players. One of these is "guy I refuse to play". Again, note that it is not because of army listsor units taken. Only "WAAC" players will cry and act like that itwhat the term means in order to justify their behavior that they refuse to take responsibility for.It is because of the attitude they have towards playing.
You will find these players just as often in other games like fantasy (which I grew out of long ago), Dustrmachiner any other game including such black and white ones as chess and checkers.

WAAC means just that. They are prepared to do anything to win. Even shanking you while they pretend to step out for a quick smoke.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This does not mean that it is a word i often use. i have other words for such players. One of these is "guy I refuse to play". Again, note that it is not because of army listsor units taken. Only "WAAC" players will cry and act like that itwhat the term means in order to justify their behavior that they refuse to take responsibility for.It is because of the attitude they have towards playing.
You will find these players just as often in other games like fantasy (which I grew out of long ago), Dustrmachiner any other game including such black and white ones as chess and checkers.

Once again with the sweeping generalisations, it's stupid. I'm complaining about the term WAAC and I really am not anything most people would consider WAAC, I just think it's a fething stupid term used to make stupid dismissive and often sweeping generalisations like what you are doing right now. "Only WAAC blah blah blah".

Also what's wrong with Fantasy? It's always had a more mature crowd amongst the gamers I have seen.

Try to keep it polite and leave name calling out of it.
A simple truth is not generalizing. if you do not like the term (read through the wiki definition. I know wiki isnt ALWAYS correct, but on this it is), dont use it. If it applies to you, assess your own actions, behaviors and attitudes (not saying it does apply to you).
The term is valid and it IS self definitive. Deadshot was joking but he was accurate. A WAAC player would do just as he said if they thought they could get away with it instead of getting carted off to jail and lose by default. ALL means ALL.

There is nothing wrong with fantasy. I started my wargaming on fantasy. If you want to get into a fantasy/40k debate, start a thread on it. Ive found that the "crowd" who plays is only defined by the amount of $ they have. You find older (not really more mature) players in fantasy because it costs more $ to play. although 40k is catching up in these last 2 editions with the more models on the table mentality GW is getting.