Lists; WAAC, Spam and Casual.

[Schlitzaf]

Inspired by three different threads, the Green Men, Elite Armies, and what do you expect out of your opponent. I want to ask to avoid derailing a thread. But at what stage is something

1) Spam

2) WAAC

3) No Longer Casual

Just for a starting off point; http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/338224-black-templars-and-ig-soup-2000-points/?do=findComment&comment=4859492 that is my list. It's a culmination of around 2ish months of 8th. And has evolved from some earlier lists. Itself a continunation of lists I have played throughout my time in 40k. With Primaris Units replacing some old stand bys. (I can like the earlier 8th lists for reference if anyone desires).

 

I'd argue it would not fall into any of the three categories. But I have had folks tell me it falls into category 1) in earlier renditions. Despite ironically not having more than double of any unit. I have been most assuredly told it is in category three.

 

Said three accusation is usually followed by "Crusader Squads are overpowered nerf plz". And in this editions it's often "Cenos are dumb nerf plz". Or that "you are using IG, OP! Unfair!" Or ironically FoTM (despite having used Scions/Stormtrooper Codex WH as allied for an Inquistors (admittedly so I could use her Hood) and my various IG Units sense 6th Ed allowed me to use my Vostroyans, and Bretonnians in the same army as my Templars).

 

Rattlings and Primaris are in that regard the only true new unit. But I lack pyskers and limited ways to position units to assassinate characters, which is why I use Rattlings.

 

The first category is often an acccusation in that I am deploying more units in reserve then most players have units on table. People often feeling cheated by the sheer number of my reserve units. And that I am horde Marines is related to the above accusations.

 

But all that aside. I am simply using my list as an example of something I would consider relatively casual.

 

But it is accused of being a Spam/NotCasual list. If you agree where and when did I cross that line? If you don't, what do you feel about those who did accuse it?

 

I believe it's not the lists themselves that matters it's the mindset you bring. I often noticed the most common accusations of NotCasual espaicially came from those who didn't use Command points because it "doesn't matter" or think the game should be just "Objectiveless Murderfun". And refused to play to the mission, and I won despite 'losing' because I did just that.

 

The spam complaint comes from a far larger variety of foes. But generally dies down beside Scions, I lack units that have real 'punch'. Sense I just mob foes with bodies. But to return to the question, when you play a game what makes a list, "WAAC", "Spam" or "Casual" (or NotCasual)

Edited August 16, 2017 by Schlitzaf

[Damo1701]

Casual - Lists are built thematically, and ignore some differences between "optimal" and "sub-par" units. Example: Pask + 2 Tank Commanders - not casual. Pask plus 2 LRBT - casual.

 

Spam - more than 1 unit of order receiving, morale ignoring 20+ conscripts, with a priest.

 

WAAC - add point 1 to Spam. Then you get into the realm of breaking a game by taking things to do jobs they aren't supposed to do, or because their rules are better than the thematic list.

 

The biggest complaint I've heard from my regular opponent is that LRBTs are rubbish because of their BS, which is why he takes 2 Tank Commanders plus Pask. Add in blobs of 40-50 conscripts, with a company commander and commissars, and the new ObSec rule, and guard can dominate any objective based mission with units that never run/feel morale, and can fall back/run and fire, or dish out double their normal shots...

 

Either it's just poor planning on the part of GW that this happens, or, guardsmen are actually worse than conscripts...

[Brother Captain Sirus]

WAAC - is a list built purely from units that are in most players eyes undercosted for what they can do. Riptides in previous editions springs to mind.

I dont think they've hit this level yet but once codexs drop for horde armies we may see them quickly thrown into this catergory, for example if ork dokz got a strategem that improved their tools to be a 5+ instead of a 6+, we may quickly see 90 boyz supported by 3 Dokz to ensure they are always in control of the board.

 

Spam - you have found a decent unit and have made your list to accomdate as many of this unit as possible. For example if i suddenly made a list with 3 venerable dreadnoughts with twin lascannons and missile launchers. Why have i done this well they are good anti tank and good anti air, they dont have degrading profiles and with 1 CP i can ensure a nearly 100% hit rate, failing that i have them surround a cheap captain to block LoS and can save the CP. Then if i take two vanguard detachments like this and throw in a battlion with 2 Lts to ensure the dreadnoughts wound rolls and a cheap screen of as many scouts or power armour units to prevent chargers....well you get spam

No longer casual - this one is harder to place. If you are testing a unit by proxy its not a casual list, its a field test, you are trying to gauge how useful that unit is.

If you are taking units you just like for there looks but they dont work great together, its casual but its still a bad list and wont result in a good game.

If you take a list that contains units that you like but they also run like a well oiled machine with decent buffs and an answer to any situation, its seen as an all comers list so by definition it cant be casual as it has an answer for everything and you've obviously spent at least some time working out how your army will work, so its no longer casual. (To me this is casual, it will provide a good game for both players while not leaving either feeling like they never had a chance.)

Judging a list and a players intentions by that list will always result in some negative comments and labelling, as some people will spam just because they like the model and enjoy painting it, and if it also happens to be great at what it does for low points it will quickly earn a WAAC badge even if that wasnt the intent, just look at Tau history, people who played them from released were branded WAAC for using them, i myself got a comment about buying GKs in 5th ed from a GW staff member, granted from his perspective i was buying a full army of them but i had the money at the time and i was replacing my old metal GKs, when i told him this strangely his attitude was suddenly better.

 

In my opinion a persons perspective will influence how they brand a list or army just as easily as the abilities of the list itself, its just one of those things in 40k.

[Eddie Orlock]

... what do you expect out of your opponent.

At this point in my gaming career I fervently hope that they'll show up with something that floats their boat without too, too, much heed for the flaky opinions of others. Just play the models you want to play.

 

With this in mind, I feel like this is a fundamentally flawed way of approaching this challenge. While for those of us who are 'rules minded' it's strongly tempting to try to codify what the metrics are so we can game them, even subconsciously, what I really find is going on is the people who issue these charges are using language that speaks to their psychological framework and not realising the words their using mean fundamentally different things to different people. Trying to simplistically pin down these words feels a bit like trying to teach a computer to 'take it easy'. I'll try to tie back to this by the time I'm done writing here.

1) Spam

From its origin in a Python sketch its a metaphor for repetition ad nauseam. Over the years I've seen many attempts to write event rules to tone this down. Like any rule placed before an optimiser they get min-maxed and subverted. It's apparent that you've run into the 'three-of-a-kind' versions of these by your specific note that you only run two of anything. You've mentally gamed the rule you inferred and this offends those who'd use social controls to manipulate their game environment. So they change the superficial rule to outlaw it.

 

Theory I harbour on this is that those who raise this as a protest don't consciously comprehend just what they're upset about. Because they don't understand themselves it's really hard to get a handle on how to remedy it.

 

Over the years I've encountered 'spam' at various layers of force organisation. From unit repetition referenced above out to formation repetition and down to wargear repetition. Every sergeant carrying a powerfist has been cited in my presence as 'fist-spam'.

 

I will laud your outcome on this though, through a rough and ready method I think you've managed to crack through a superficial layer here for a peek at what lays conceptually the next layer down. It's not that all the units look the same, but rather that they all fill the same battlefield concept. Yet another tiny unit, likely laden with task suitable special weapons, to be traded off against a more expensive asset likely via rapid insertion. On the table it doesn't matter what the paper entry looks like, or even the figures, the qualitative experience for the opponent is the same. Cheap thing takes their toy away.

 

It's not all touchy-feely psychographics though, there are some harder math arguments regarding how spam can serve to distort and impoverish the gaming experience, but I'll get to this in the next section.

2) WAAC

I usually prefer to use more euphemistic language than this emotionally charged backronym. I might call it 'Optimised from a game rule perspective only'. The backronym assumes there's costs to this. Certainly, like any trade-off over narrow criteria, there are, but what are they?

 

An obvious one is what I'll group as 'hobby production ability', the time, money, and other resources, it takes to pull together new minis. Or maybe it's the ratio of this that's bent toward new units with rules utility rather than cosmetic alterations? That said, I don't think this is really what the objection's all about so we'll tread this in the next section.

 

Nay, the presumed sacrifice is oft alleged to be some blend of flavour and verisimilitude to the fluff. I speak only for myself, but I find the idea of optimising to match the private fluff opinions deep in the back of someone else's skull to be really hard.

 

Players that issue this charge implicitly have expectations about force composition and play style that aren't bound up in the current published rules set, but never the less are felt to have something near the same weight when it comes to pulling the game together. When these implied constraints are violated they feel cheated. But they can't say they were cheated because by the texts they weren't. So they create new code language to share with others whom they think they share a vision of unwritten constraints with. This way they can form a pack and a pact to bully and ostracise the infidel into either compliance or exile.

 

There is another outlier version of this. In a stable group the sacrifice could be a presumed chance at skills development and the personal growth that could come from attempting to prevail with a force that shies away from a rules optimum. This is where I pick up those promised mathier arguments. Simply put, the game uses linear costing models to attempt to estimate the outcomes of a probabilistic non-linear system. There are regions of the force design space where this can work alright. Where the system was tested, modeling as some presume it was intended, the conflicts portrayed in the narratives and official battle report examples. It's a bit like the 'small angle approximation'. Where its close enough it's a fantastically useful tool for simplifying some technical analysis. It'll also totally destroy an equations validity if you distort the system beyond its justifiable applicability. Related, but simpler than the notion of comparing a stat blocks worth with its utility in the absence of context.

3) No Longer Casual

This last ones a bit like asking 'when does one become a professional [occupational noun]'. Call back to the earlier reference to how do you get a computer to slack. Some people in this hobby relax by feeling out the apexes of the curves. Others labour in other directions. Getting one group to comprehend how another group thinks, that's hard.

 

Regarding going pro, in just about anything it's some tipping point where the action is perceived as becoming all encompassing. No longer just a sideline, but a lifestyle. Pro Hockey players spend a few evenings a week in the winter actually playing pro hockey. They spend an all consuming amount of time in the rest of their life training and preparing just for those short contests. If I, a rather casual hockey player, was to face off against one, I think we all know how it'd go. If I was lucky I might manage to not embarrass myself and evade injury at the same time.

 

So again, it's a charge to imply that you don't match the presented values of their 'in-group' in an effort to exert social controls to make their contests easier to win. You allegedly don't do enough 'other' other things to be properly 'cool'.

 

------------------------

 

So, walking past all this disaffected rambling and bluster, what do we do about it?

 

If we can, maybe we can have a heart to heart with our intended opponent where we discuss what we actually want out of the game and how we can play it in a manner that satisfies all parties. Assuming they have the internal perspective to realise and articulate what it is that they really want. Once the agendas are known we can work toward a common ground. Or, at least understand that out objectives are mutually incompatible and save ourselves some future grief by just not playing out that pairing.

 

There's no way to legislate your way around this. It's a fundamentally feelings thing. Best path I've yet found is to soul search and know yourself to help you know others so you can talk it out. Just like any other relationship you need to maintain.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

People overthink this too often, either because they are on the casual side and hate the WAAC mindset, or they are in the competitive camp, and hate being victimized by casuals. As someone who has lived in both worlds for a long time, it's very easy to answer something as simple as those three questions.

 

1) When is it spam? If there are more than two identical squads in the list. Duplicates can be forgiven, because sometimes redundancy is required. But three squads? Four? Five? Six? All with the same optimized wargear, or all the best units/squads in your codex? It's obviously spam.

 

2) When is it WAAC? When the list is built purely for optimization, to the extent of all else, including fluff, appearances, models, flavor, and opponent enjoyment. Power armor is cool? No thanks, Scouts are more efficient. I can roll other psychic powers? Yeah, but why would I when Invisibility is so good? Aspect Shrine army? Why bother taking anything other than Warp Spiders and Windriders? I don't have to make a 72" long conga line? Yeah, but why wouldn't I? That's WAAC.

 

3) When is a list no longer casual? When the list is built with the intent of optimization and efficiency rather than thematic purposes or using a model for the sake of using the model. Orks may have been bad in 7E, but a Green Tide or Nob Biker list is no longer a casual army.

[Adeptus]

 

... what do you expect out of your opponent.

At this point in my gaming career I fervently hope that they'll show up with something that floats their boat without too, too, much heed for the flaky opinions of others. Just play the models you want to play.

 

With this in mind, I feel like this is a fundamentally flawed way of approaching this challenge. While for those of us who are 'rules minded' it's strongly tempting to try to codify what the metrics are so we can game them, even subconsciously, what I really find is going on is the people who issue these charges are using language that speaks to their psychological framework and not realising the words their using mean fundamentally different things to different people. Trying to simplistically pin down these words feels a bit like trying to teach a computer to 'take it easy'. I'll try to tie back to this by the time I'm done writing here.

1) Spam

From its origin in a Python sketch its a metaphor for repetition ad nauseam. Over the years I've seen many attempts to write event rules to tone this down. Like any rule placed before an optimiser they get min-maxed and subverted. It's apparent that you've run into the 'three-of-a-kind' versions of these by your specific note that you only run two of anything. You've mentally gamed the rule you inferred and this offends those who'd use social controls to manipulate their game environment. So they change the superficial rule to outlaw it.

 

Theory I harbour on this is that those who raise this as a protest don't consciously comprehend just what they're upset about. Because they don't understand themselves it's really hard to get a handle on how to remedy it.

 

Over the years I've encountered 'spam' at various layers of force organisation. From unit repetition referenced above out to formation repetition and down to wargear repetition. Every sergeant carrying a powerfist has been cited in my presence as 'fist-spam'.

 

I will laud your outcome on this though, through a rough and ready method I think you've managed to crack through a superficial layer here for a peek at what lays conceptually the next layer down. It's not that all the units look the same, but rather that they all fill the same battlefield concept. Yet another tiny unit, likely laden with task suitable special weapons, to be traded off against a more expensive asset likely via rapid insertion. On the table it doesn't matter what the paper entry looks like, or even the figures, the qualitative experience for the opponent is the same. Cheap thing takes their toy away.

 

It's not all touchy-feely psychographics though, there are some harder math arguments regarding how spam can serve to distort and impoverish the gaming experience, but I'll get to this in the next section.

2) WAAC

I usually prefer to use more euphemistic language than this emotionally charged backronym. I might call it 'Optimised from a game rule perspective only'. The backronym assumes there's costs to this. Certainly, like any trade-off over narrow criteria, there are, but what are they?

 

An obvious one is what I'll group as 'hobby production ability', the time, money, and other resources, it takes to pull together new minis. Or maybe it's the ratio of this that's bent toward new units with rules utility rather than cosmetic alterations? That said, I don't think this is really what the objection's all about so we'll tread this in the next section.

 

Nay, the presumed sacrifice is oft alleged to be some blend of flavour and verisimilitude to the fluff. I speak only for myself, but I find the idea of optimising to match the private fluff opinions deep in the back of someone else's skull to be really hard.

 

Players that issue this charge implicitly have expectations about force composition and play style that aren't bound up in the current published rules set, but never the less are felt to have something near the same weight when it comes to pulling the game together. When these implied constraints are violated they feel cheated. But they can't say they were cheated because by the texts they weren't. So they create new code language to share with others whom they think they share a vision of unwritten constraints with. This way they can form a pack and a pact to bully and ostracise the infidel into either compliance or exile.

 

There is another outlier version of this. In a stable group the sacrifice could be a presumed chance at skills development and the personal growth that could come from attempting to prevail with a force that shies away from a rules optimum. This is where I pick up those promised mathier arguments. Simply put, the game uses linear costing models to attempt to estimate the outcomes of a probabilistic non-linear system. There are regions of the force design space where this can work alright. Where the system was tested, modeling as some presume it was intended, the conflicts portrayed in the narratives and official battle report examples. It's a bit like the 'small angle approximation'. Where its close enough it's a fantastically useful tool for simplifying some technical analysis. It'll also totally destroy an equations validity if you distort the system beyond its justifiable applicability. Related, but simpler than the notion of comparing a stat blocks worth with its utility in the absence of context.

3) No Longer Casual

This last ones a bit like asking 'when does one become a professional [occupational noun]'. Call back to the earlier reference to how do you get a computer to slack. Some people in this hobby relax by feeling out the apexes of the curves. Others labour in other directions. Getting one group to comprehend how another group thinks, that's hard.

 

Regarding going pro, in just about anything it's some tipping point where the action is perceived as becoming all encompassing. No longer just a sideline, but a lifestyle. Pro Hockey players spend a few evenings a week in the winter actually playing pro hockey. They spend an all consuming amount of time in the rest of their life training and preparing just for those short contests. If I, a rather casual hockey player, was to face off against one, I think we all know how it'd go. If I was lucky I might manage to not embarrass myself and evade injury at the same time.

 

So again, it's a charge to imply that you don't match the presented values of their 'in-group' in an effort to exert social controls to make their contests easier to win. You allegedly don't do enough 'other' other things to be properly 'cool'.

 

------------------------

 

So, walking past all this disaffected rambling and bluster, what do we do about it?

 

If we can, maybe we can have a heart to heart with our intended opponent where we discuss what we actually want out of the game and how we can play it in a manner that satisfies all parties. Assuming they have the internal perspective to realise and articulate what it is that they really want. Once the agendas are known we can work toward a common ground. Or, at least understand that out objectives are mutually incompatible and save ourselves some future grief by just not playing out that pairing.

 

There's no way to legislate your way around this. It's a fundamentally feelings thing. Best path I've yet found is to soul search and know yourself to help you know others so you can talk it out. Just like any other relationship you need to maintain.

 

 

This is an astonishingly good reply. Well done to you.

[Arkhanist]

I can see why you're getting accusations of spam and not-a-casual list. This isn't an attack or criticism, I don't know your group - just my thoughts on your list were I to face it blind at a club.

 

The general principle of an all-comers list is that you need to be able to tackle a mix of units - armour/monsters, flyers, horde infantry, elite infantry and smite-heavy. So you won't be super-strong against one type, but you'll have an answer to all of them. This works in tournaments because you're playing multiple games and multiple missions where the odd matchup where you're overwhelmed by a specialist army can be balanced out by playing the mission, and them also finding lists they're not equipped to deal with.

 

In a casual game, you don't have that 'lots of games in a short time' to balance it out - generally, you're expecting to face a similar all-comers list, because you may well not get another game for a week, or a month.

 

Looking at it, your list is just infantry with a smattering of cavalry. Your IG soup segment is a way to fill roles cheaper than your marines can - ratlings, cavalry, cheap heavy weapons, cheap bodies, so you can spend more on your core crusaders etc.

 

I'll give you some points for not spamming commissar/conscript blobs, but look at it from the other side of the table. All the points they put into lascannons, meltas et al are wasted. Their anti-flyers are wasted. Any anti-psyker is wasted. Instead, it's just a huge mass of bodies - and with the mix of weapons on the table, you've clearly put thought into having answers to whatever your opponent brings.

 

So it comes down to expectations - they're expecting a casual beer-n-pretzels list with a range of things, and you've brought a specialized list that 50% of their army can't do much to. They're at a strong disadvantage before you've rolled a single die.

 

It's not spam in the purest sense - but what they mean is squad after squad after squad of guys, they kill one and 2 more are behind it. And the lack of casualness is because you can counter everything they bring in an general-types list, but they can't do the same to you, and you've clearly put some thought into its effectiveness. On top of that, 8th is shaping up to be the edition of the horde.

 

To mitigate this, I'd suggest a couple of alternative options.

1) Tell people ahead of time your approach; maybe that it's infantry heavy, that it's quite a strong list, and then people will have the appropriate expectations going in - and potentially can use a stronger list focused on anti-infantry to give you a better, fairer game. If you're playing with a group of people all the time, they will appreciate this.

 

2) alternatively, or in addition, tone it down for casuals. Maybe mix in some dreads, or tanks, or flyers - so an all-comers army has something to fight against that's not just waves of tough infantry and shooty guard. Take more stuff you like the look of, rather than just the most efficient units of your two factions. Perhaps focus more on the templars, so scout snipers instead of ratlings, land speeders instead of cavalry, that sort of thing - it will make it feel less like you're cherry picking the best stuff (whether you intended it or not, that's the feel your list has to me)

 

The key thing, above all, is for both players to have fun. If you're bringing a strong focused list, and they're not, they're not going to have fun, and neither will you when you run out of people to play. Your list does have a theme, it does have some character, and it's not super-WAAC - build on that, and potentially let people know in advance roughly what you're up to, they can do the same, and i think you'd get a lot less complaints.

[Adeptus]

There was a thread on reddit asking what you like to see across from you when the game begins. Almost every response was along the lines of "a good mix of units, maybe a vehicle or two and a couple of characters".  I generally try and stick to that theory when I'm building my lists, including dreadnoughts and rhinos and fliers and things instead of just taking max Paladins and deepstriking everything I can.

 

There's two people in every game.

[Ishagu]

Does the army look like something you read about in the lore?

 

I've never read a story about 11 Tau Commanders in a single fight :-P

[the jeske]

For me WAAC is up there some where with recasting your own dice or asking your friends to hold up a dude in a toilet round 4, so he gets DQ for being late[while being a unfavorable match up for you]. At all cost has to be at all cost, and not within the rules of the game.

 

Spam is what it is. Only I do not look at separate units[armies with 1 option per slot are suppose to do what?], but whole army interaction. 4 or more crusader squads in a BT army, specially if it is only made out of BT detachments is not spam. 4-6 storm ravens being buffed by a G-man with some naked scouts, is spam.

 

On what is not casual. Everything out of the book is casual. The interaction between units are what takes a list to the next step. Sprinkle some units here and there, take 3 storm ravens, or a riptide wing in 7th? stuff is still casual. But if your army consists of multiple culexus [debuffed if shot or meleed] followed by Eversors that are not targetable it stoped being casual. In general any army that can either table 90% of normal armies turn 1 or are impossible to kill unless you really know how to play[or have that one specific counter, which is often never played in casual lists] is non casual.

 

 

Is your list WAAC non casual spam for me ? No, I don't like the multi detachment thing with different imperials, but this is a left over of bad taste ally matrix left in my mouth from 6-7th ed.  There is one thing I noticed though, people tend to call everything they dislike WAAC, non casual. Heck your army can be as casual as it can be, but if your opponent doesn't "like" you he is still going to say your a WAAC tournament player. In general I the way to avoid it is A either have a group of people that like you and play them, if the pool of those people is big, you should have an ok time playing or B play at events/tournaments, there no one cares if you spam or what ever, people are there to play games and not engage others in social disputes.

[Charlo]

Does the army look like something you read about in the lore?

 

I've never read a story about 11 Tau Commanders in a single fight :-P

 

But at least 8 right? For Farsight and his merry anime men!

(Yeah I know not all are commanders :P)

Really good topic though fellas and femme-llas?

 

I think the hardest one to pin down is "not casual" as this entirely depends on the meta & mindset of your opponents. In it's most pure form though, its a strong lean towards units with very good points/ destruction ratio that are brought purely for their power alone rather than because of a theme or for fun BUT mixed in with some fun too. Really though, one mans casual is another mans ultimate awesome kill-fest!

[chapter master 454]

End of the day, the question is simple: are you having fun?

 

There is no fun when two players have mismatched lists. I will tell you I have faced tournament lists with my goofy armour lists of the past (5th and 7th edition) and battled them only ever to draws on my best days and while those draws were hard fought I was ice skating uphill every turn and while I found it fun, I look at them in hindsight and see it as a a fight that wasn't fair to begin with. A fair fight is an odd thing because we are inherently trying to make it unfair, that's the nature of the game in that we take a fair set of rules and unbalance them by applying our ability to create lists and move units.

 

So I argue a spam list can be a bit of an annoyance but you can't argue they can look impressive and be fun. I would be considered a spammer, I am a big fan of bringing 3 land raiders (or more if I can) as my army. I even yesterday took a 5 dread list. They are fun and let me use what I want to use. I particularly hate marine infantry as their main liners (Tacticals, Assault and Devastators) all lack anything in anything other than being poor unit choices overpriced for the sake of being marines. Lets be frank, marine infantry unless you pick ether the new guys or a select few inbetween options (which all reside in the elite section unless you want to biker mice from mars).

 

So my question is, at what point do I become your 'WAAC' player? Because some people would call me that well before others might. Some might respect me for bringing certain lists that have the makings of becoming a tournament list where others would see it as cheap and 'not fun'. To me, I don't enjoy holding back as I feel it gives false impressions of how well your list would do and is disrespectful of my own models as well, if you want to play you better play to win. Then again when I say that, I expect everyone to do that, even the casual. You play to win. This isn't me saying winning is everything but what I am saying is what I say in my siganture: "The point is to have fun, the objective is to win. Never get the two mixed up". If you can remember that then you are all good. I am going to bring what I love still, if you don't like it then that's fine but I play what I love and that is TANKS. Simple and clear, if you don't like it then that's fine you can play someone else who will cater to your needs. Some may call me cheap for it but I have a true and true love of units that come in the form of armour, not tin foil look-a-like.

 

In that regard, a true WAAC player imo would come to a club with a list for everyone. If they were to face me I suddenly run into every unit having ether lascannons or meltaguns with NO anti-infantry. The same would be true of someone he faces that loves infantry, all infantry shredding weapons but no anti-tank. WAAC is when the player has gotten the point and objective mixed up and that is the true definition of what those are.

 

There are Casuals, Competitive and WAAC players. (I am not replacing spammer with competitive. Spammer is just a silly thing to even make, by that definition you would call any battalion a troop spam since it has 3 troops in it). Casuals come and play with what many could consider 'balanced' lists and these are fine, decent players however they will get ran over by competitive players. However, these two can get along as competitive players (not me XD) can pull punchs in the game and make tactical errors to help the casual have a chance. Both however hate WAAC players. These players will cheat, bring tailored or net-decked lists from tournament winners and have no army loyalty.

Personally I would like to see myself as an aspiring competitive player, wanting to be able to rock with the top lists and be able to have a chance to win. Because if there is a chance to win, there is a fight to be had and if there is a fight to be had there is fun to be had!

[Schlitzaf]

A lot of good answers! So it sounds like the most important distinction here, is "Not Casual" and WAAC are distinctly different even if they are similar

[Arkhanist]

Oh, absolutely. WAAC for me is much more about the player than the list. Basically someone who comes up with real stretches of rules interpretations to benefit themselves, couldn't give 2 flips about fluff, paint or model if there's an advantage to gain, will argue forever about the most trivial of disputes, never gives you benefit of the doubt etc etc. For me at least, WAAC == bad sportsman.

 

Competitiveness, playing to win is absolutely fine, and fun - as long as you're both on the same page. I've played board games with family which were knockabout messy random oddball, and others which are toss-your-wife-under-a-metaphorical-bus in order to win. They were all fun in their own way, because in the end, it was just a game and we were all playing the same way.

 

WAAC, for me, is not about competitiveness per se. It's a lack of respect. (and being a dick).

[HenricusTyranicus]

Well for me, casual is using power levels, non casual is using points. Power levels are for getting things on the board and having fun. Points are granulated, and exist to make choices in army building more in depth and difficult.

I also agree that WAAC is more about attitude in game than list building. I generally let my opponent have the benefit of the doubt on rules and measurements. Gives me the ability to build whatever list I want without being too cheesy. :P

[Closet Skeleton]

Spam - More than one of any character and more than 3-4 of any default troops choice and more than two of any other unit. Alternatively, any list where a single option is the dominant feature.

 

WAAC - When you take a list that you don't actually want to play that contains units you don't like and will put straight up on ebay the moment they get nerfed.

 

No Longer Casual - To me a casual list is a list that can only be played in a casual environment and I wouldn't ever expect to win more than the odd game with. A balanced fluffy list that's designed to hold its own is to me no longer casual. But I would never say "no longer casual" because that implies that some kind of rule or norm has been broken.

[the jeske]

 

WAAC - When you take a list that you don't actually want to play that contains units you don't like and will put straight up on ebay the moment they get nerfed.

 

So probably almost all chaos players from end of 4th up until the legion book were all WAAC

[Plaguecaster]

Sometimes including FW units gives you WAAC status by certain people especially if they hate FW units :D before they got faqed I faced a marine player using only storm ravens and spent the whole game telling me I was a WAAC just because I had 2 chaos Contemptors and a Deredero which managed to take out one of his ravens :D eventually I just got fed up and poured my drink over his head, got a 4 week ban from the club but it was rather satisfying especially when I found out he sold all his storm ravens after the FAQ :D

[K0rtmer]

...

 

I believe it's not the lists themselves that matters it's the mindset you bring. ...

 

 

People overthink this too often, either because they are on the casual side and hate the WAAC mindset, or they are in the competitive camp, and hate being victimized by casuals. 

This. It's about both, and a mistake to assume WAAC or competitiveness shows only in somebody's attitude. More often than not have I played against people with stupidly broken lists, but glossing over it with extremely casual, :cusss-and-giggles attitudes. Never helped the overall low experience. Curiously, that sentiment was seldomly shared; somehow people didn't seem to rate their experience as poorly as I did mine. I can't help myself, but I, personally, fail to see anything entertaining in reliably tabling the other guy top of turn two. Yet people do, whether they perceive themselves as WAAC or competitive or not. (I also haven't yet met a single self-identified WAAC player.)

 

Nothing wrong with that. But you want to make sure you communicate your expectations before actually playing - or not. Nothing I could add to the excellent post of Eddie Orlock above. Basically what he/she said.

 

But I'd encourage you to think about the question of list vs. mindset. Your answer might well be different to mine - but you might learn something about what you want to get out of your game and how to make that happen more often. 

[Claws and Effect]

Spam: Taking a lot of a particularly effective unit because a rules loophole made it more powerful than it should be. Example: Guard list running more than a couple Hellhounds because they are effective against flyers.

 

No Longer Casual: Putting a decent amount of forethought into a list regarding its weaknesses and making an effort to eliminate them.

 

WAAC: Switching armies regularly to always have the one deemed most powerful. Interpreting a rule one way when it benefits you, and differently when it hurts you. Never investing more than the bare minimum effort in your army's appearance.

 

Spam and WAAC often overlap as well. If a unit is cheap and good, you can bet WAAC players will isr a bunch of them.

[Kinstryfe]

I believe it's been said, but intent plays into this A LOT. I've played 2 real games this edition, both 1k points. They were both fun in different ways, but the first was a massacre of my guard with a Tyranid army that was mostly big creatures that I couldn't take down. The list out of context was pretty "overpowered", "waac", "monster spam", but it was because those were his fav models and our league was setup for 1k points. So none of his thinking was about those bad ways to play, he just played what he likes. Likewise, I like fielding tons of bodies, always have with my guard. I'm finding myself purposely running only one large unit of conscripts because it's powerful and I don't want to seem waac. I also ran a ton of mortars, which qualify as spam, but my only reasoning was how cheap they are and the fact that it made for more bodies. They were the MVP the second game, and I'm likely going to cut back next league name just too about spamming. The important thing though is that neither of us had bad intent, and we played for fun, not specifically to crush the enemy. That goes a long way IMHO toward mitigating the bad blood that can come from playing an optimized list or being full of "cheese".

[Frater Cornelius]

In competitive games anything goes in terms of lists, however cheesy. I may dislike something, but I won't say a word, as long as the opponent plays fairly and shows sportsmanship. Cheating or abuse gets an immediate strike.

 

In casual games, which were also agreed upon as such, I see sacrificing feel, theme or fluff for efficiency as WAAC. Not if some units are optimized, but if major deviations were taken. As spam as would describe any unit that outnumbers the usual occurence in the fluff (load of Guardsmen is OK, more Sternguard or Centurions than Tacs is not).

 

In a narrative game I see any deviation from the relevant fluff as WAAC to some degree.

 

Having said that, I am very forgiving regarding all of those practices and I need to admit, that I am not clean myself.

[the jeske]

I think the problem with WAAC as a term, is that the most OP armies ever through edition after edition couldn't become any more fluffy. Windraider host[before it even was a formation], bunch of harlies or mecha eldar, SM battle company etc. Those armies were rolling over the "casual" and tournament lists too. In the end I think it has absolutly nothing to do in how the list is build or how it is being played, and everything with personal dislikes of one person. Edited August 18, 2017 by Brother Casman
Removed real-world politics

[Fhanados]

My Deathguard list repeats several units. Two units of 20 poxwalkers, 3 units of 5 Plague Marines, 3 Helbrutes, 2 Bloat Drones and so on. I guess that's technically spam right? "No longer casual" though, I'd disagree with that. To me this is a thematic army. I've got a core of Plague Marines, screened by the filthy masses herded to battle by their uncaring masters supported by unholy contraptions of flesh and steel. Honestly I don't think you could make a WAAC army with Death Guard as they are now, their options are too limited.

 

To me WAAC is the guy that takes a bucketload of Scion command squads with plasma but no regular scions. The same guy who would take a screen of conscripts to fill out their troops slots, some tri-las Predators or neutron laser Onagers in heavy (if this is a terrible combination forgive my ignorance! Just going off personal experience as an 8th ed noob). An army with no rhyme or reason to it other than to make the most optimised force for the points available. I've got no problem with WAAC armies, they have their place... I just prefer that place to not be the opposite end of the table I'm playing on!

[ERJAK]

WAAC is a made up term coined by baddies to make themselves feel better. Spam is an army building method and 'not casual' is just what fluff bunnies call 'an army that actually works'.