# Competitive players vs WAAC players - Drawing the line



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

How often have you seen people saying...

_"Competitive players are assholes"
"Competitive players just want to win and hate losing"
"Competitive players have bad sportsmanship"
"Competitive players take the fun out of the game"
"Competitive players are destroying the hobby"_
etc etc

What i hope to do with this thread is draw a line. A line that most people seem to ignore. A line that this hobby NEEDS to draw to better understand the competitive players intentions.
This line is the line between being a Competitive player, and a WAAC (Win At All Costs) player.


Lets start with the WAAC player.
The WAAC player is the type of player who only plays to win. They take pride in their wins, and seek to achieve them in any way possible.
When a WAAC player is defeated, typically they are disappointed, and dont take it very well.
Their tactics generally involve exploiting certain loopholes in the rules, which often take the fun out of the game.
If the WAAC player loses a couple of games, they will seek a new army list off the internet that somebody else had success with, and try again.

The problem is that the WAAC player is typically "lumped" into the same category as the competitive player, which drags down the reputation of the competitive players.
Think of it like young "hoons" that do burnouts and race on the roads. While it is true that all young hoons are indeed young drivers, it doesnt mean that all young drivers are hoons. Yet the hoons are lumped into the young drivers category and subsequently the reputation of the young driver is ruined.
The same goes for the competitive player and the WAAC player.
While it is true that all WAAC players are competitive players, it doesnt mean that all competitive players are WAAC players.

So, what is a competitive player?

Well, i consider myself to be a competitive player. I like to use effective units, and pride myself on building lists that can adapt to all situations.
I am very interested in the mathematics of the game, and constantly use mathhammer and certain strategies during the game.
I am proud of my wins, as i can reassure myself that my strategy both on the table and building my army list was effective.

HOWEVER

I enjoy having fun a LOT more than i do winning, it is a game after all. 

Losing is not the end of the world for me. I am actually quite happy for somebody to beat me, as it gives me another aspect of my army or a tactic that i need to improve.
I am a very fun player to play against. I always try to congratulate the opponent with everything that they do. Even if its something as simple as them winning a combat, i will always say "nice work " or "well done ".
I usually find myself in the top 10% of sportsmanship scores for the tournaments that i attend.

Being a competitive player is perfectly natural. Even animals and plants compete against each other, its what our species does to survive.
Some people are competitive at playing, some are competitive in their painting, some in their modeling. It differs between people.

However, there is a line. This invisible line that needs to be drawn. Not with pencil, but with a great big paint roller so everybody can see.

I have been harassed by certain people on the internet (who shall remain anonymous) claiming that competitive gamers like myself who use mathhammer are destroying the hobby, and assume that i am a terrible person to play against.
If they actually played against me, they would see that i enjoy having fun FAR more than i enjoy winning, and can guarantee that regardless of who wins that we can both walk away having thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

This thread is purely to try and make people realize that there IS a difference between a competitive player and a WAAC player, and i hope that people can try to draw a line in their mind between the two.

Im sure that there are plenty of players who have the exact same view as me, and are sick to death of being categorized as a WAAC gamer just because they build competitive lists.
This thread is for you. :drinks:


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

:laugh: I have been invited several times to a games day held by a near local gaming club. These members I generally divide into two types.

Competitive players, hobbyists who enjoy the hobby for what it is but still take it seriously enough to play for the win. Several of these people are also friends who have been members of the club for some time, and imo they do it great credit.

But then there are the WaaC players, or as I like to call them, the elitist pricks. They hold a very narrow, almost puritan view of what the game _should_ be, even going so far as to modify the rules to suit their own house rules, even applying these changes to the tourneys they organise. Most of them only play WHFB or Warmachine, purely because they liked the predictable flow of the game. 

One of my happier moments came when the new edition of WHFB was released. No longer was there the possibility of writing lists that would win 90% of the time. There was actually a random element to the game now, and even the best lists could be destroyed by the use of a good spell with a lucky roll. (Damn Lore of Life to Hell!)


Basically, I didn`t want to join the club. I am a 40k player, and most of them barely even acknowledged the game existed, viewing it as a kids game and not worth their time. You can see why I call them elitist pricks.

I fully understand the difference, Cheese. I am a fluff player, my lists are almost always themed. I will avoid some themes if they result in a power list, simply because I don`t want to play a blunt game. I like the game to have a bit more depth.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Problem is cheese there are only two types of gamers allowed by the national gaming board of great Britain, so you either fall into "competitive" or "hobbyist", these basically translate to "arrogant whiney bitches who smell like gas" and "dreamer nice guys with huge manhood's"
Sorry but thats just how it is.


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

You can add the : Assholes 'Who look down on you' to that list.
I have something of a stray goldfish for a memory most of the time and i occasionally forget part or the whole of a rule, completely by misake; yet these guys look down their noses at you and point out the error like the sun shines out of their ass and you are stupid.

I'm more of a hobbyist than a serious gamer as i have always been more artist than anything else.
Sometimes I'd like to categorize them with a fist in the face, It pisses me off no end.

SGMAlice


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> ... "dreamer nice guys with huge manhood's"....


Fortunately we are also all too modest to rub your face in it :wink:

More seriously I think King of Cheese has highlighted the dividing line very well; competitive gamers are toward the right end of the conflict versus art scale but not off the end.

I also view the divide as being in when the respective groups get their fulfilment: a competitive player enjoys the cut-and-thrust of the game, takes pleasure in his opponent using a particularly cunning plan and in adapting to counter the same, whereas a WAAC player takes pleasure in having won and not how they got there.

The odd thing is that the opposite end of the scale from WAAC, people who collect and paint a perfect representation of a particular unit but never play, get no bad press at all


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

Wow. There sure is a lot of "competitive vs casual" threads going around these days...


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Imperious said:


> Wow. There sure is a lot of "competitive vs casual" threads going around these days...


Of course there are; do you think any of us could let some one else's thread get the prefect definition first?


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Of course there are; do you think any of us could let some one else's thread get the prefect definition first?


Touché. :wink:


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> The odd thing is that the opposite end of the scale from WAAC, people who collect and paint a perfect representation of a particular unit but never play, get no bad press at all


Damn them, I hate not playing against them and their perfect display models.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

Bravo! I'm in the same boat as you cheese and you have outlined the division very well.

+rep good sir!


----------



## Alexious (Apr 13, 2009)

Interesting debate.... So will add some observations that I see;

1). The strictly competitive gamer and Games Workshop are never going to meet! I have played since 87 and watched the hobby evolve over time from its start with 40k. Competition has always had its place in the 40k world, but what a lot of people tend to forget is that GW is primarily not focused toward the competitive edge of the market and never should be.(Sorry the 14 to 18 year old market is where the cash is! not writing a line of text in FAQ8.99999999A that talks about the exact power of the Ring of Hoerth.... funny how these corporations want to make money isnt it?)

I read a lot of online stuff and I contribute to a few blogs here and there.... some described as very WAAC player bases. Yet for their genius list design and some inspired tactics.... they fail to remember, GW has grown from a hobby not a competitive sport and the game was never designed to be one.

Its never going to be perfect, codexes will be unbalanced, lists will never reflect a purely fully competitive environment. It just won't work... Its like some people are attempting to do a Grand Prix in 2010 in a 1924 model T... its just not going to work out well! I think too often too many people are searching for a Holy Grail of the 40k verse... some Master tactical combination of list that kills anything always! Sorry kids... does not work that way!


2). I disagree with you on the Mathhammer aspect completely. We are no longer in RT era... it worked awesomely then... however your Math now contains too many variables to be accurate anymore. Consider a Marine firing a bolter vs a IGuardsman shooting his lasgun both at 18 inches. Who is more likely to hit and wound? Well in the era of RT easy enough.... math wise... but 5th edition has changed this... cover save, LOS, did he move first, can I rapid fire? etc... the variables have increased dramatically... you can use math to give you a basic idea... but thats it now.. and anyone saying S9 500000 hits and 40 templates from this build... kills you.... sorry it doesn't unless your playing on the great Glacier which must be on every planet in the 40k verse.... no cover nothing to stop you shooting those 20 odd stealers coming your way....then it works... it does not work with the 5th edition rules or Terrain rules if your playing anything resembling basic tactics... (To summarize... hiding behind a hill screws your mathhammer!)

3). Painters Unite! I do paint... I paint ok, not brilliant but ok... I do feel the painting modeling aspect is just as COMPETITIVE and just as important as the WAAC and also competitive player. But what I cannot fathom... is the inability for anyone to say...

wow... Jimmy paints well, he plays nice and he writes a killer list that screwed me! When did any competition become about a solo activity?.. its like we are saying your a WAAC player..... because you mathhammer and you argue rules and write great lists... but your the best or seen as an authority on it all.

I dont see it like that. To me thats a bit like saying... your an awesome footy player! But you can only kick... you cannot pass, you cannot run.... When did we become as a hobby so one dimensional? I thought the best of the best would be awesome painter, who writes awesome list that kicks ass and awesome sportsman! roll that up and you have the best of the best for that GW product. Not... awesome player Jimmy! who pushes the grey plastic around all day! or painter Dave who has never played a game but can make evy metal painters weep... Isnt the best of the best the person who can do it all?

Where do I fit in.... Old Cranky and Weary? LOL... I wonder!

Lexi.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

:goodpost:


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Alexious said:


> Isnt the best of the best the person who can do it all?


No, its a film staring eric roberts


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

I'm fine with competitive players, one at my local is name near unstoppable and he is possible one of the nicest people out there. Just that most of the WAAC's are normally kids often between 11-16 and are often horrible people even outside the game. I had one of them actually physically harm me because i "confiscated" his ball from him as he was throwing it around outside the shop while it was closed and almost hit a granny and hit another guy. I promised that i would give it back to him once the shop re-opened but he just sat there yanking my arm and demanding his ball back for 15 minutes. My arm wasn't right for 3 days and i was on pain killers. I think he even punched me twice. He did eventually apologise for his action a few weeks later but most likely because his parent forced him to. Those people are the scum that are ruining the game.


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

jaws900 said:


> Just that most of the WAAC's are normally kids often between 11-16 and are often horrible people even outside the game. I had one of them actually physically harm me because i "confiscated" his ball from him as he was throwing it around outside the shop while it was closed and almost hit a granny and hit another guy. I promised that i would give it back to him once the shop re-opened but he just sat there yanking my arm and demanding his ball back for 15 minutes. My arm wasn't right for 3 days and i was on pain killers. I think he even punched me twice. He did eventually apologise for his action a few weeks later but most likely because his parent forced him to. Those people are the scum that are ruining the game.


I would've pulled out my laspistol and shot him! :aggressive:


----------



## Flindo (Oct 30, 2010)

I'm a competitive player, and I play it to have fun, and I love to win, but I dont mind losing still, it happens.


----------



## Alexious (Apr 13, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> No, its a film staring eric roberts


How dare you attack Eric Roberts.... of course we all know he would be an Dark Angel player anyway... but...thats not the point! 

Anyway we all know the best player would be Beau Bridges... I heard he is a WAAC Tyranid player.


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

Alexious said:


> The strictly competitive gamer and Games Workshop are never going to meet! I have played since 87 and watched the hobby evolve over time from its start with 40k. Competition has always had its place in the 40k world, but what a lot of people tend to forget is that GW is primarily not focused toward the competitive edge of the market and never should be.(Sorry the 14 to 18 year old market is where the cash is! not writing a line of text in FAQ8.99999999A that talks about the exact power of the Ring of Hoerth.... funny how these corporations want to make money isnt it?)
> 
> I read a lot of online stuff and I contribute to a few blogs here and there.... some described as very WAAC player bases. Yet for their genius list design and some inspired tactics.... they fail to remember, GW has grown from a hobby not a competitive sport and the game was never designed to be one.
> 
> Its never going to be perfect, codexes will be unbalanced, lists will never reflect a purely fully competitive environment. It just won't work... Its like some people are attempting to do a Grand Prix in 2010 in a 1924 model T... its just not going to work out well! I think too often too many people are searching for a Holy Grail of the 40k verse... some Master tactical combination of list that kills anything always! Sorry kids... does not work that way!


I've been playing on and off since 1991. That is an excellent observation that many fail to recognize. I used to play magic the gathering along time ago. Magic is very good about keeping up with faqs & errata, GW... not so much. 

Nicely done my Byzantine friend. +rep


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

I think the real dividing line is between the player who's fun to play with and the dirtbag who isn't... It has very little to do with what kind list they are running. I've played guys who ran a non-optimized list who didn't know the rules and whined and complained about everything... (You know the guy who argues that everything of his gets cover and nothing of yours gets cover... and the more you're winning the more ugly the guy becomes....) I've also played against guys with competitive lists who really care more about winning than how they won - or even whether or not their opponent had fun during the game. Saying that you're a casual player does not immediately indicate that you're a fun guy to go against... And just cause I build hard lists, does not mean that I only care about winning... 

When I think about a competitive game I believe that means myself and my opponent have an equal chance of winning. The best games are when luck + tactics win for you... 

See, as someone who enjoys competition (ie, we both have an equal chance of winning) I really only have a few choices... I can either dumb down my list to make the game more fair.... Or I can help my opponent see why their list sucks and how to improve it. Sometimes, it involves a little of both... Thankfully, I'm in a position where I have the models to run a lot of different types of lists. So normally I'll ask my opponent what kind of list he wants to play against.... but please realize that what I ultimately want is a fair and balanced match vs my opponent... 

And if my opponent is a dirtbag, I won't play him again...


----------



## kuneho (Nov 11, 2010)

I myself is a competitive player, I love using effective units in the game and I also used to mathammer things. But, I never get frustrated when im on the losing side, when my dice fails me, me and my opponent just laughs about it. It's in losing that you'll learn a lot of things, more improvements to be done, there is no growth if you always win.

Players here in the Philippines are very competitive, although we are not as big as the US or UK, but we are continuously growing. The nice thing of a not-so-big community is that we all know each other, mostly drinking buddies. So whenever we play here, even competitively, we trash talk a lot :laugh:, we make fun of our mistakes and bad rollings.


And always remember it is OK to be competitive in both gaming and painting, as long as both players respect each other and never forget the true essence of this hobby... *TO HAVE FUN*. We play to unwind not to stress ourselves, leave the stress at work. :wink:


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

kuneho said:


> . It's in losing that you'll learn a lot of things, more improvements to be done, there is no growth if you always win.
> 
> 
> 
> And always remember it is OK to be competitive in both gaming and painting, as long as both players respect each other and never forget the true essence of this hobby... *TO HAVE FUN*. We play to unwind not to stress ourselves, leave the stress at work. :wink:


Quoted for complete truth. Have some rep


----------



## Kuolema (Nov 4, 2010)

Serpion5 said:


> But then there are the WaaC players, or as I like to call them, the elitist pricks. They hold a very narrow, almost puritan view of what the game _should_ be, even going so far as to modify the rules to suit their own house rules, even applying these changes to the tourneys they organise. Most of them only play WHFB or Warmachine, purely because they liked the predictable flow of the game.


If you think warmachine is predictable then you obviously haven't played it.



Alexious said:


> 1). The strictly competitive gamer and Games Workshop are never going to meet! I have played since 87 and watched the hobby evolve over time from its start with 40k. Competition has always had its place in the 40k world, but what a lot of people tend to forget is that GW is primarily not focused toward the competitive edge of the market and never should be.(Sorry the 14 to 18 year old market is where the cash is! not writing a line of text in FAQ8.99999999A that talks about the exact power of the Ring of Hoerth.... funny how these corporations want to make money isnt it?)


GW didn't have to change in earlier edition, they had very little competition. Who cares if the rules weren't balanced what else where you going to play if you wanted to push little minis around? Not much. 
Anyone can tell you how crappy balance was is 4th edition, even reading the 4th ed codexs would give you some idea. Short version, it sucked. Other games started showing up with some actual balance where you could actually play competitively and lots of people moved on from GW. 
5th edition comes around and GW realizes some people actually LIKE competitive gaming and so start balancing their rules, all 5th edition books have multiple competitive builds and some of them are even fluffy. 

5th edition caters to the needs of BOTH hobbyists and competitive gamers. 



> I read a lot of online stuff and I contribute to a few blogs here and there.... some described as very WAAC player bases. Yet for their genius list design and some inspired tactics.... they fail to remember, GW has grown from a hobby not a competitive sport and the game was never designed to be one.


You realize that makes no sense what so ever? Most competitive sports did not start out as competitive sports. They started as games played between friends.


> Its never going to be perfect, codexes will be unbalanced, lists will never reflect a purely fully competitive environment. It just won't work... Its like some people are attempting to do a Grand Prix in 2010 in a 1924 model T... its just not going to work out well! I think too often too many people are searching for a Holy Grail of the 40k verse... some Master tactical combination of list that kills anything always! Sorry kids... does not work that way!


Have you been reading the same 5th edition books as every one else? They work pretty dam good competitive wise. They offer multiple balanced competitive lists and none of them only have a single competitive list like older books do.
Is it perfect? No, but it's dam better that what GW has put out in the past.


2). I disagree with you on the Mathhammer aspect completely. We are no longer in RT era... it worked awesomely then... however your Math now contains too many variables to be accurate anymore. Consider a Marine firing a bolter vs a IGuardsman shooting his lasgun both at 18 inches. Who is more likely to hit and wound? Well in the era of RT easy enough.... math wise... but 5th edition has changed this... cover save, LOS, did he move first, can I rapid fire? etc... the variables have increased dramatically... you can use math to give you a basic idea... but thats it now.. and anyone saying S9 500000 hits and 40 templates from this build... kills you.... sorry it doesn't unless your playing on the great Glacier which must be on every planet in the 40k verse.... no cover nothing to stop you shooting those 20 odd stealers coming your way....then it works... it does not work with the 5th edition rules or Terrain rules if your playing anything resembling basic tactics... (To summarize... hiding behind a hill screws your mathhammer!)[/quote]

Because it is so hard to work out how different your guns will preform depending on if your opponent has cover or not. Also must be so hard to remember the range on all your weapons and which ones can move and fire and which ones can't




> 3). Painters Unite! I do paint... I paint ok, not brilliant but ok... I do feel the painting modeling aspect is just as COMPETITIVE and just as important as the WAAC and also competitive player. But what I cannot fathom... is the inability for anyone to say...
> 
> wow... Jimmy paints well, he plays nice and he writes a killer list that screwed me! When did any competition become about a solo activity?.. its like we are saying your a WAAC player..... because you mathhammer and you argue rules and write great lists... but your the best or seen as an authority on it all.


They have these things called a painting competitions.
Painting skills don't affect who wins and who loses. If you want to compare painting skills you don't do it in the middle of a game. 



> I dont see it like that. To me thats a bit like saying... your an awesome footy player! But you can only kick... you cannot pass, you cannot run.... When did we become as a hobby so one dimensional? I thought the best of the best would be awesome painter, who writes awesome list that kicks ass and awesome sportsman! roll that up and you have the best of the best for that GW product. Not... awesome player Jimmy! who pushes the grey plastic around all day! or painter Dave who has never played a game but can make evy metal painters weep... Isnt the best of the best the person who can do it all?



Passing, kicking, running are all part of footy just like list building, target priority and deployment are all part of 40k.
Painting is not part of the game but part of the hobby. Painting is like uniforms from footy, it is something you need but having an awesome looking uniform doesn't affect if you win or lose.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Kuolema said:


> If you think warmachine is predictable then you obviously haven't played it.


Four games a few years back with a borrowed force, and never since. I just don`t like the way it plays, it`s chess with fancier pieces. To me anyway.

You obviously have your own views. Kudos for that, but know that I don`t really care. 

The guys I was referring to play it because the random element featured of the new fantasy edition is greatly reduced in Warmachine, allowing them to build power lists and win all their games like they used to in Fantasy. 

Elitist pricks, regardless of game system.


----------



## Kuolema (Nov 4, 2010)

Serpion5 said:


> Four games a few years back with a borrowed force, and never since. I just don`t like the way it plays, it`s chess with fancier pieces. To me anyway.
> 
> You obviously have your own views. Kudos for that, but know that I don`t really care.
> 
> ...


You compare WM to chess ?
Your an idiot, you obviously have your own views about that but I really don't care. =]

You roll dice in war machine and so it will always be random but at least you actually know how far your troops will charge unlike in 8th ed fantasy.

Btw you can build 'power lists' in 8th edition fantasy. It's easier than in warmachine since PP is so much better at balancing a game than GW, not perfect but defiantly better. 

People heard you the first time you called them elitist pricks you don't have to go on about it, seriously do you think your any better than them going online and bitchy about how they act and play a table top game??


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Kuolema said:


> Btw you can build 'power lists' in 8th edition fantasy. It's easier than in warmachine since PP is so much better at balancing a game than GW, not perfect but defiantly better.


Just like to point out that it must be much easer to produce a balanced game with only say 6 army choices and skirmish rules, as opposed to the large battle format rules with 15 armies (WHFB) and 14 armies (40k)? Just saying.

I remember playing Blood bath at Orcs Drift when I was my sons age, back in the days of 2nd edition Fantasy, and it certainly wasnt competative (the armies you fielded we not very balanced on purpose), and I cant remember us looking up too many rules to argue about. We must of played those scenarios dozens of times and I dont think we ever got bored with it. Those golden days 

In todays fast paced world, my perception is people need to win as many games as they can to justify spending the time on it. This in turn leads to the WAAC player, who can boast on line how uber duber their army is. We wont ever get rid of them now they have infested the hobby. Personally I have fun a majority of the games I play regardless of my win loss ratio. Maybe Im too old school :biggrin:


----------



## Kuolema (Nov 4, 2010)

humakt said:


> Just like to point out that it must be much easer to produce a balanced game with only say 6 army choices and skirmish rules, as opposed to the large battle format rules with 15 armies (WHFB) and 14 armies (40k)? Just saying.


You realize war machine and hordes are basically the same game? If you have a horde army you can fight other horde armies AND other WM armies.
So no it's not 6 armies, it's 11.
Btw all warcasters/warlocks play differently from each other, so just because it's skirmish compared to block on block combat doesn't make it any less complicated. Try playing the game before you comment on it? =]


----------

