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.
Andykp wrote: ... another favourite internet BS term...
There's nothing BS about the term. It describes a specific logical fallacy.
"You suck and you're wrong!" = Not an ad hominem.
"You suck therefore you are wrong!" = Ad hominem attack.
But….I’m not saying anyone sucks, I’m not attacking anyone. Maybe WAAC was a bit too triggering here, it was merely a comment on the fact that some competitive players will now snap up previously pariah models because the rules are good even though many of them lambast the same models as awful right up until the rules changed.
I’m not calling hecaton WAAC, or painting owl, I’m certainly not being aggressive, I just find it very odd that anyone would choose to have models they hate in their army. The key bits of WAAC are the winning and the cost. The cost being the horrible models. It’s not even that I hate the models, it’s that the people buying them hate them.
Here is a lot about the competitive scene that baffles me, recently I found out you can pay to be coached in 40K , now I find that people aren’t just chasing the good units but will buy units that they hate if the rules are good enough. For someone who doesn’t play or mix in that scene at all it’s very very odd, to the point of being unbelievable. But here we are!
So please ignore the WAAC part of my comments, it’s obviously a touchy subject and not the point I was trying to make. I will be more careful in my use of the term and save it for 5e worst cases.
And HBMC, by BS term I meant it gets rolled out on here far too easily to try and deflect an argument and reposition someone as the victim with any attempt at real dialogue. It rarely adds anything to the discussion but just tries to shut it down. I know it has a real meaning but it rarely is used in that way. (Nothing to do with its use here)
WAAC is inherently an attack. Sometimes it's an accurate attack, like when you're talking about the guy that moves his models an extra inch when you aren't looking or cheats with dice. That is a clear example of Win At ALL Costs behavior. But someone who merely prioritizes in-game performance over aesthetics is not trying to win at ALL costs, they merely have different priorities from you. By calling them WAAC you are putting them in the same category as the cheaters, the seal clubbers, etc, and saying that their choice of priorities is equivalent to all of that.
WAAC is inherently an attack. Sometimes it's an accurate attack, like when you're talking about the guy that moves his models an extra inch when you aren't looking or cheats with dice. That is a clear example of Win At ALL Costs behavior. But someone who merely prioritizes in-game performance over aesthetics is not trying to win at ALL costs, they merely have different priorities from you. By calling them WAAC you are putting them in the same category as the cheaters, the seal clubbers, etc, and saying that their choice of priorities is equivalent to all of that.
Anyone who prioritizes in-game performance over aesthetics, whether they're posting here or merely reading this thread. You're saying that because they bought the (IMO) ugly missile marines for competitive play regardless of their lack of aesthetic value they're equivalent to the guy who brings an edited version of the codex with buffs for all his favorite units. It would be no different than me calling all narrative players CAAC TFGs for buying narratively-appropriate units even if they have bad rules. Even if I didn't name you specifically I bet you'd feel pretty attacked by that comment.
Anyone who prioritizes in-game performance over aesthetics, whether they're posting here or merely reading this thread. You're saying that because they bought the (IMO) ugly missile marines for competitive play regardless of their lack of aesthetic value they're equivalent to the guy who brings an edited version of the codex with buffs for all his favorite units. It would be no different than me calling all narrative players CAAC TFGs for buying narratively-appropriate units even if they have bad rules. Even if I didn't name you specifically I bet you'd feel pretty attacked by that comment.
Not especially no. My point wasn’t that people bought models I thought were ugly but that they bought models THEY thought were ugly. Models they wouldn’t go near and were slating online mere months before were suddenly the hot product and the same people were paying over the odds for them.
That is not a sign of a healthy system. Now if anyone is sat there with a load of desolation marines that they just bought because they love he rules that’s fine by me, the ones I sold made me a pretty penny and got me a new dreadnought for next to nothing
But if that is considered normal and acceptable with you and your crowd it is another example of why I will never get that slice of the community. Utterly baffling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And “casual at all costs”… that’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 01:34:08
Not especially no. My point wasn’t that people bought models I thought were ugly but that they bought models THEY thought were ugly. Models they wouldn’t go near and were slating online mere months before were suddenly the hot product and the same people were paying over the odds for them.
That's just being competitive and fairly high on the scale for it, where as the low end might be putting together the most powerful list you can with the units you already own and have painted.
WAAC is a very specific term that explains itself. Win at all costs. The "all costs" bit is important here because it means taking advantage of anything you can. At the low end it often means trying to pull fast ones on your opponent / not pointing out rules which might favor them that they're forgetting or 'pretending' you don't know, such as using out-of-sequence strategems and such unless specifically called on it. Soft cheating, if you will. On the 'higher' end it involves straight up cheating like getting extra movement or lying about rolls / changing dice / saying your units have rules which they absolutely do not.
So while I believe most people in this thread will agree that buying the ugly G.I.JOE missle-marines purely because they're strong is kinda distasteful, and not the direction the hobby should be going... Doing so doesn't make anyone a WAAC player.
Andykp wrote: That is not a sign of a healthy system.
No, it's a sign of a system you don't enjoy. I get that you value aesthetics but not everyone else has the same priorities. For someone who prioritizes in-game performance having ugly models is, at best, a fairly minor annoyance. That doesn't make either side inherently right.
And “casual at all costs”… that’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
I guess you haven't seen self-identified casual players having a complete meltdown at someone who dared to bring a list that wasn't "casual" enough or didn't comply with their version of the lore.
Not especially no. My point wasn’t that people bought models I thought were ugly but that they bought models THEY thought were ugly. Models they wouldn’t go near and were slating online mere months before were suddenly the hot product and the same people were paying over the odds for them.
That is not a sign of a healthy system. Now if anyone is sat there with a load of desolation marines that they just bought because they love he rules that’s fine by me, the ones I sold made me a pretty penny and got me a new dreadnought for next to nothing
But if that is considered normal and acceptable with you and your crowd it is another example of why I will never get that slice of the community. Utterly baffling.
GK for 2 edition were a codex NDK. If you could just take only NDK, you would do it. And people did 3-5-6 maxed them out, otherwise the army would just not work. The NDK is considered one of the worse looking models in the game period. But when given two options play an army which is not fun and bad, and play an army that has ugly NDK, and at least potentialy have a chance for some fun game, people will pick the second over the first more often.
And how is it not healthy, wanting to not have fun is the way to go? I do this, and I know it is not healthy, because I have the papers for it.
I guess you haven't seen self-identified casual players having a complete meltdown at someone who dared to bring a list that wasn't "casual" enough or didn't comply with their version of the lore.
People don't even know what a casual list anyway. You will have an eldar player drop at the store with his new 10th list, then whine how all marines are running double or triple desolation squads vs his "casual" eldar list. Only when someone realy casual aka with a bad list, plays vs them they get tabled and the difference between the casual and not is very ephemerical. Is someone who build a custodes army with a christmas box and starter set a WAAC, a regular or Casual player? He has no assasins, uses sisters of silence instead of the cheaper arbitors, but at the same time he has a warden unit, a 10 brick of guard and 2xallarus which is almost the same as in tournament list. A GK player using terminators was casual as F in 8th and 9th, because termiantors were horrible, not worth taking in any situation, but now they are a WAAC, because strikes and especialy interceptors got much worse. Did the WAACGK with maxed out NDK, 30 interceptors and 0 terminators became a CAAC overnight when 10th rules got leaked?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 03:55:00
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Andykp wrote: That is not a sign of a healthy system.
No, it's a sign of a system you don't enjoy. I get that you value aesthetics but not everyone else has the same priorities. For someone who prioritizes in-game performance having ugly models is, at best, a fairly minor annoyance. That doesn't make either side inherently right.
And “casual at all costs”… that’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
I guess you haven't seen self-identified casual players having a complete meltdown at someone who dared to bring a list that wasn't "casual" enough or didn't comply with their version of the lore.
I guess the fact that there's a unit people want to spam mac of and will proxy/sell kidneys for/do whatever it takes to field might be an indication of a broken system.
Overall agree, both WAAC and CAAC often get misapplied on here very regularly. Very evidently no offense was meant though following an explanation and it certainly wasn't worth Hecaton spending a page trying to bait Andy into some gakky argument over it.
What? Upset that someone's being called out for using "WAAC" as a way to try to ad hominem people who have complaints about the game they don't like?
No the fact you shamelessly try to prod and bait someone into n argument or a position for you to attack them.
All you need to say is "oh I see you used WAAC there, you might need using it incorrectly and some people might be upset you're inferring it's cheating to take 30 desolation marines".
Trying to bait an explicitly worded response to force an argument so you get a little dopamine rush over a misunderstanding, isn't exactly a noble defense of competitive players using ugly as sin models they bought at twice the price.
Andy clearly meant they disagreed with using the models they deem ugly purely because it leverages poor rules writing. Which interestingly backs up your stance in the world about a poorly balanced game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 06:21:52
Why the heck can't you let him alone? He goes out of his track to explicitly say he was a bit to harsh and clearly explain his opinion. Then you might say I disagree with you Andy but there comes a point in this discussion we're continuing debating is really just argument for the sake of an argument and turning every thread into a dumpster fire. That's being tiring.
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
Being accused of being WAAC as in too competitive at a GAME plus recieving excuses and reformulation afterwards for having been harsh is NOT abuse
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 07:08:29
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Being accused of being WAAC as in too competitive at a GAME plus recieving excuses and reformulation afterwards for having been harsh is NOT abuse
waac includes behaviour that isn't actually competitive too.
Like cheating.
Still though, someone throwing down 30 desolation marines built as per GW instructions will inevitably be regarded as someone that wants to win above all.
Honestly it's a scale: CAAC ----- normal players ------ WAAC
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Being accused of being WAAC as in too competitive at a GAME plus recieving excuses and reformulation afterwards for having been harsh is NOT abuse
Once again: WAAC does not mean "too competitive", it refers specifically to unethical behavior outside the scope of normal gameplay such as cheating or seal clubbing. An accusation of WAAC behavior is a serious insult.
I take it you own 30 desolation marines and frequent events then? Otherwise you've not been abused by anyone.
I wouldn't worry you've not been overcivil at all, quite the opposite.
You're asking me to be overcivil.
What has directly "abused" you? What has been said that requires you to be aggressive and manipulative? Justify the lack of civility on a personal level please.
waac includes behaviour that isn't actually competitive too.
Like cheating.
Still though, someone throwing down 30 desolation marines built as per GW instructions will inevitably be regarded as someone that wants to win above all.
Honestly it's a scale: CAAC ----- normal players ------ WAAC
I don't think it's a scale like that. CAAC players are typically also focused on winning, they just get there by bullying people who can beat them, seal clubbing on pickup game nights, etc.
So you might say you just described someone who wins at all costs? Maybe you need to redefine your own terms.
Not Online!!! wrote: Still though, someone throwing down 30 desolation marines built as per GW instructions will inevitably be regarded as someone that wants to win above all.
No, that is just normal competitive play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: So you might say you just described someone who wins at all costs? Maybe you need to redefine your own terms.
No, the self-identified "casual" player who is a CAAC TFG needs to redefine theirs. The issue is that "casual" means having a low investment in something and not taking it very seriously. IOW, the kind of person who plays one game a year with a starter box they got in 1995 and certainly doesn't post on forums about the hobby. But certain players will label themselves "casual" players despite having a massive investment, both in time/money and in emotional attachment to the game, and then use "casual" as a bludgeon to try to force everyone else to play exactly the way they do. And in many cases it's very much about winning. Rather than acknowledge that their list was weaker and take the loss in a meaningless game of toy soldiers they'll have a complete meltdown over the possibility of losing or having to change their list in any way to compete. There's nothing even remotely "casual" about their behavior by any conventional definition of the word but it's the flag they rally behind so they get to be called CAAC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 08:21:56
WAAC and CAAC are terms used to describe people who have improper social and behaviour skills during games at the polar extremes of behaviour; which results in a negative play experience for those they play against
They are NOT about how skilled a player is at the game nor about how well/poorly they have built their army list. You can have a WAAC who has terrible skills and makes up for it by cheating or only playing very new players who are still learning the rules; you can have a very skilled CAAC player who is just not paying attention to the game what so ever and might even just wander off mid-game because "eh its a game don't take it too serious bro" or who screams "cheese/waac" every time someone fields an army against them that doesn't fit their interpretation of what that army should look like "lore wise"
Using those two terms to define player skill is often done, but its not really getting to their real meaning. Player skill levels is a whole separate aspect and yes you do get situations where high and low skill players end up playing each other without either party really knowing the other's play style or level (because we don't have grades or such to segregate and inform the playing population and most clubs only have a small player pool to start with).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/08/15 08:40:17
Not Online!!! wrote: Still though, someone throwing down 30 desolation marines built as per GW instructions will inevitably be regarded as someone that wants to win above all.
No, that is just normal competitive play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: So you might say you just described someone who wins at all costs? Maybe you need to redefine your own terms.
No, the self-identified "casual" player who is a CAAC TFG needs to redefine theirs. The issue is that "casual" means having a low investment in something and not taking it very seriously. IOW, the kind of person who plays one game a year with a starter box they got in 1995 and certainly doesn't post on forums about the hobby. But certain players will label themselves "casual" players despite having a massive investment, both in time/money and in emotional attachment to the game, and then use "casual" as a bludgeon to try to force everyone else to play exactly the way they do. And in many cases it's very much about winning. Rather than acknowledge that their list was weaker and take the loss in a meaningless game of toy soldiers they'll have a complete meltdown over the possibility of losing or having to change their list in any way to compete. There's nothing even remotely "casual" about their behavior by any conventional definition of the word but it's the flag they rally behind so they get to be called CAAC.
As the person who came up with it no, that is not it at all. CAAC refers to "casual" players who whine and cry about anyone who brings a stronger list than theirs, come up with all kinds of arbitrary rules (most of them vague and unwritten) that you're expected to follow, assert moral superiority over everyone who doesn't follow their rules about the "right" way to play the game, and attempt to shun those people from the community. And they assume that "casual" is synonymous with "good", and is the default assumption for everything that isn't competitive. IOW, if a unit/game type/etc is bad for competitive play then it must, by default, be great for "casual" games even if in reality it makes things worse for those games as well. This usually extends to having a poor level of understanding of game design and balance, and even being proud of embracing bad design/balance as proof of how thoroughly they reject the hated competitive style of play.
In short, the term "casual" becomes redefined from its normal meaning of having a low investment in the game and not taking anything seriously to being extremely serious about rejecting the people and play styles they hate. There is nothing at all casual about them, and "CAAC" highlights the absurdity of their chosen label.
CAAC is about shaming competitive mindsets and enforcing game restrictions to enforce a particular play style to manipulate a local meta into being "casual" (green bit). TFG is someone who will be a harsh misleading person that will pick on and beat down people at their club to be the big fish in the little pond. WAAC is someone who will manipulate, cheat or abuse circumstances to ensure they win(red bit).
If you're telling me that someone is forcing certain comps and playstyles to club seals and get easier wins whilst telling people that it's fine because they're casual (lying), they're doing all they can to win at any cost.
All of this is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand and tbh it's absurd that someone is so offended at a mislabelling of a behaviour that wasn't targeted at anyone that they feel the need to break rule 1 and make a personal attack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 08:55:31
Dudeface wrote: TFG is someone who will be a harsh misleading person that will pick on and beat down people at their club to be the big fish in the little pond.
No? TFG is a general term: That ing Guy. It can be a CAAC TFG, a WAACTFG, or even just the guy who only bathes once a month and creeps on every woman who enters the store.
If you're telling me that someone is forcing certain comps and playstyles to club seals and get easier wins whilst telling people that it's fine because they're casual (lying), they're doing all they can to win at any cost.
I think you're misunderstanding the goals here.
The WAAC player's goal is victory by any means necessary. Even if they have to cheat with their netlist against a baby seal a win is a win and that's all that matters. In fact, seal clubbing is better than a normal game because it has the best chance of winning 100-0. They feel entitled to a 100% win rate and nothing can be allowed to get in the way of that.
The CAAC player wants to win but not any more than the average person. What they don't want to do is change. That's the thing in common with my definition and the supposed original one* you quoted: the CAAC player has a specific way they want to play the game, defined by taking sub-optimal choices and opposing list optimization. They're generally content to win half their games as long as their opponents are all playing the "right" way, where they table flip is when they start losing most of their games and have to face the choice between continuing to lose or improving their lists. But as long as everyone is playing the "right" way they won't feel the need to push any further. They aren't going to cross that line into cheating/seal clubbing/etc. And they sure as hell aren't going to compromise their "casual" principles by taking a tournament list to improve their chances of winning.
*I'm not convinced that's the original one given the concept has existed in other games for a long time. For example, I first encountered that kind of player in MTG at least 20 years ago. Maybe Peregrine came up with "CAAC" specifically but it's at most a new label for an old concept, certainly not the sole possible definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Using those two terms to define player skill is often done, but its not really getting to their real meaning.
Yep. You can have high-level competitive players who are scrupulously honest, clearly declare all of their intentions, and give their opponent every benefit of the doubt, the polar opposite of the WAAC attitude. Or you can have very low-skill WAAC players who feel entitled to win despite their lack of skill and cheat constantly to compensate. Same thing with CAAC. Skill is an entirely different scale that has nothing to do with the toxic attitudes of WAAC/CAAC players.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/15 09:41:00
Dudeface wrote: TFG is someone who will be a harsh misleading person that will pick on and beat down people at their club to be the big fish in the little pond.
No? TFG is a general term: That ing Guy. It can be a CAAC TFG, a WAACTFG, or even just the guy who only bathes once a month and creeps on every woman who enters the store.
If you're telling me that someone is forcing certain comps and playstyles to club seals and get easier wins whilst telling people that it's fine because they're casual (lying), they're doing all they can to win at any cost.
I think you're misunderstanding the goals here.
The WAAC player's goal is victory by any means necessary. Even if they have to cheat with their netlist against a baby seal a win is a win and that's all that matters. In fact, seal clubbing is better than a normal game because it has the best chance of winning 100-0. They feel entitled to a 100% win rate and nothing can be allowed to get in the way of that.
The CAAC player wants to win but not any more than the average person. What they don't want to do is change. That's the thing in common with my definition and the supposed original one* you quoted: the CAAC player has a specific way they want to play the game, defined by taking sub-optimal choices and opposing list optimization. They're generally content to win half their games as long as their opponents are all playing the "right" way, where they table flip is when they start losing most of their games and have to face the choice between continuing to lose or improving their lists. But as long as everyone is playing the "right" way they won't feel the need to push any further. They aren't going to cross that line into cheating/seal clubbing/etc. And they sure as hell aren't going to compromise their "casual" principles by taking a tournament list to improve their chances of winning.
*I'm not convinced that's the original one given the concept has existed in other games for a long time. For example, I first encountered that kind of player in MTG at least 20 years ago. Maybe Peregrine came up with "CAAC" specifically but it's at most a new label for an old concept, certainly not the sole possible definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Using those two terms to define player skill is often done, but its not really getting to their real meaning.
Yep. You can have high-level competitive players who are scrupulously honest, clearly declare all of their intentions, and give their opponent every benefit of the doubt, the polar opposite of the WAAC attitude. Or you can have very low-skill WAAC players who feel entitled to win despite their lack of skill and cheat constantly to compensate. Same thing with CAAC. Skill is an entirely different scale that has nothing to do with the toxic attitudes of WAAC/CAAC players.
That's a much better and clearer definition all round thank you.
I get what you're saying. It was only after I moved from wh40k to Warmachine when it suddenly turned out that knowing and following the rules and measuring distances neatly and transparently makes you a good player and a desirable opponent and not a ruleslawyering powergamer.
Now I started playing Kill Team, and, what do you know, there are some players in the group who just misinterpret the rules and do impossible things when it comes to distances (interestingly only when it favours them) but when you play correctly they look down on you making comments on how they are casual players and leave such approach to tournament powergamers who just want to win at all cost.
Cyel wrote: I get what you're saying. It was only after I moved from wh40k to Warmachine when it suddenly turned out that knowing and following the rules and measuring distances neatly and transparently makes you a good player and a desirable opponent and not a ruleslawyering powergamer.
Now I started playing Kill Team, and, what do you know, there are some players in the group who just misinterpret the rules and do impossible things when it comes to distances (interestingly only when it favours them) but when you play correctly they look down on you making comments on how they are casual players and leave such approach to tournament powergamers who just want to win at all cost.
Honestly just sounds like a local problem with your local gamers into 40K.
Sometimes you can get that were enough of a core of the local group dominates one game so that the "game" becomes an attitude of play and other types of player either leave outright or drift into other games.
You can change it, but it often requires bringing the people to you; starting your own 40K/Killteam games and promoting your style of play enough that either some of the current players shift attitudes or new people join in
I have seen that problem too, and it has to do how the rules of GW games are written, specially among non-native speakers
so the rules "as written" are not clear to everyone and most just play it how it "feels" right to them and if you are the guy pointing out that this is not what is written there, you are the problem because this would "feel" wrong
that those people also use the interpretation to their own advantage is an attitude of certain players in addition to the original problem
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
, now I find that people aren’t just chasing the good units but will buy units that they hate if the rules are good enough. For someone who doesn’t play or mix in that scene at all it’s very very odd, to the point of being unbelievable. But here we are! 
My point wasn’t that people bought models I thought were ugly but that they bought models THEY thought were ugly. Models they wouldn’t go near and were slating online mere months before were suddenly the hot product and the same people were paying over the odds for them.
ing Guy. It can be a CAAC 
